WorldWisdomTheLibraryofPerennialPhilosophyTheLibraryofPerennialPhilosophyisdedicatedtotheexpositionofthetimelessTruthunderlyingthediverse

religions.ThisTruth,oftenreferredtoastheSophiaPerennis—orPerennialWisdom—findsitsexpressionintherevealedScripturesaswellasthewritings

ofthegreatsagesandtheartisticcreationsofthetraditionalworlds.On theOriginofBeauty:Ecophilosophy in theLightofTraditionalWisdom

appearsasoneofourselectionsinthePerennialPhilosophyseries.

ThePerennialPhilosophySeriesInthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,aschoolofthoughtarosewhichhasfocusedontheenunciationand

explanationofthePerennialPhilosophy.Deeplyrootedinthesenseofthesacred,thewritingsofitsleadingexponentsestablishanindispensable

foundationforunderstandingthetimelessTruthandspiritualpracticeswhichliveintheheartofallreligions.SomeofthesetitlesarecompanionvolumestotheTreasuresoftheWorld’sReligionsseries,whichallowsacomparisonofthewritingsofthegreatsagesofthepastwiththeperennialistauthorsofour

time.

Cover:“SunsetintheRockies,”

byAlbertBierstadt(1830-1902)

OntheOriginofBeauty

EcophilosophyintheLightofTraditionalWisdom

JohnGriffin

ForewordbySatishKumar

OntheOriginofBeauty:EcophilosophyintheLightofTraditionalWisdom

©2011WorldWisdom,Inc

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybeusedorreproducedinanymannerwithoutwritten

permission,exceptincriticalarticlesandreviews.

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataGriffin,John. On theoriginofbeauty : ecophilosophy in the lightof traditionalwisdom /JohnGriffin;forewordbySatishKumar. p. cm. -- (The perennial philosophy series) Includes bibliographicalreferences(p.)andindex. ISBN 978-1-935493-98-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Aesthetics. 2. Ecology--Philosophy.3.Humanecology--Religiousaspects.I.Title.BH39.G6852011111’.85--dc23

2011023548

Printedonacid-freepaperintheUnitedStatesofAmericaForinformationaddressWorldWisdom,Inc.

P.O.Box2682,Bloomington,Indiana47402-2682www.worldwisdom.com

OWorld!Olife!Otime!

Shelley

Therearetwobirds,twosweetfriends,whodwellontheself-sametree.Theoneeatsthefruitsthereof,andtheotherlooksoninsilence.

MundakaUpanishad

FOREWORD

“Beautyistruth,truthbeauty,”saidthepoetJohnKeats,“—thatisallyeknowonearth,andallyeneedtoknow.”Whenwediscovertheunityoftruthandbeautythengoodness,happiness,and

wellbeingflowthroughourlivesoftheirownaccord.Wherethereisnobeautythereisnotruthandwherethereisnotruththereisnobeauty.Whenbeautyandtruthare inresidencein thehouseofhumanlife thenharmonyandwholeness,joyanddelight,integrityandbalanceoccurautomatically.Ifbeautyistruththenbeautyhastobemorethanavisualappearance.Beauty

is the intrinsic quality of right relationship within and between objects andsubjects, individuals and communities, nations and continents, religions andracesand,aboveall,peopleandtheplanetearth.Whentheserelationshipsbreakdownthenthereisnotruth,nobeauty,nopeace,andnofreedom.Whentruebalanceandproportionsaremaintainedbetweenrightsandduties,

order and freedom, intellect and intuition, science and art, and all the otherapparentoppositesthenweexperiencetheconditionsofbeauty.Wherethereisrightrelationshipbetweentheobserverandtheobservedthen

thereisnodistinctionbetweenthebeautifulandtheusefulorthenaturalandtheartistic.Inthestateofrightrelationshipnatureinspiresartistsandtheartistsarefilledwithgratitudetonature.Social injustice, environmental degradation, religious and racial conflicts,

terrorism and wars are ugly because there is an intense breakdown of rightrelationship between the self and society, between producer and consumer,betweenrulerandtheruled,andbetweenhumankindandthenaturalworld.Globalization of economy, industrialization of manufacturing, and

militarizationof thenation statesmakeugly situationsuglier.Theyunderminethe right relationship among diverse human groups, between people and theplanet earth andwithin the biodiversity of thewild.The result is an unhappy,unequal, insecure, and discontented humanity; moreover we are left with apolluted, depleted, contaminated, and exhausted naturalworld. This is not thebeautifulutopiawewerepromisedduringthetwentiethcentury.Beauty is theoriginal and fundamental principle of theuniverse basedon a

harmoniousrelationshipbetweentheentireecosystem,butthroughthepursuitofunlimitedandcontinuouseconomicgrowth,endlessconsumerism,andmindlessmaterialism,humankindhasembarkedupona suicidalassaultonourbeautiful

biosphere.Ifwewishtoescapefromthecatastrophicconsequencesofecologicaldegradationwehavetoshiftourattentionfromthepursuitofeconomicgrowthto the pursuit of beauty. We have to re-establish the integrity of the bioticcommunitywhichistheearthitself.Thiswecandobyhonoringandcelebrating thesublimebeautyof thewild,

through the re-enchantment of the color, light, magic, and mystery of theuniverse.Wecanrestorebeautyinthehumanworldbysafeguardingthemajesticbeautyofthenaturalworld.Theoriginofthehumandespairisinthedestructionofthewildbeautyinnature.Converselythehealingofthehumansoulisentirelydependentonrejoicinginnaturalbeauty.Theenvironmentalmovementhasnorealpurposeifitisnotamovementfor

theprotectionandconservationofnaturalbeauty.Thereisnothingmoreurgentthanrecognitionofthisreality.Inthiscontext,JohnGriffin’sbook,OntheOriginofBeauty,isaprofoundly

challengingmanifesto.Hehasperformedanimmenseservicetohumankindbywriting this book.On the Origin of Beauty is bound to become a catalyst intransforming human consciousness. This book reminds us that environmentalsustainability,economicresilience,socialjustice,andspiritualfulfillmentareby-productsofbeauty.Therefore,byaddressingthesubjectofbeauty,JohnGriffinhasaddressedalltheseconcernsbyimplication;itisaseminalbook,abookofreasonandwisdom,atonceconvincingandinspiring.

SatishKumarEditor,

ResurgenceMagazine

INTRODUCTION

Therecanbenomoreworthwhile task for awriter than toconfront andmakesenseofthepivotaleventuponwhichtheirageturns.Whatisthedefiningeventofourown times ifnot theecologicalcrisisandour suddenawakening toourlong-standing role as antagonist in thegreatest of all tragedies?Wehave, it isevident,pittedourselvesagainsttheearthitselfinabattlewecouldnotpossiblywin.A ghastly sense of inevitability has come to pervade this drama, andweplayon,nowwithfullawarenessofwhatwedo,awaitingonlythefinalactandthedisclosureofourfate.Onethingthatisbecomingevercleareraswewatchtheecologicalcrisisunfoldisthatwehaveforfeitedwhateverfreedomweoncehad to influence that fate.When the north polar icecap retreats and does notreturn, the glaciers of Greenland melt away into the sea, the ice shelves ofAntarcticaareshearedaway,andthefrozentundraofSiberiaandAlaskathaws,wemaysense“Gaia”quietly, as ifwithdetermination, closing ranksagainst athreattoherlife-sustainingcapacity.Thedestructivetendenciesofthoseshehasnurturedthroughalltheirtimeonearthwillbestoppedonewayoranother.Forhertodefeatsuchanadversaryisnotdifficult;allthatisrequiredisthedisabling—by floodingorothermeans—of theorganizational centresofwhat is nowaglobaltechnologicalandeconomicsystem.Ifthisisachievedrelativelyquicklythereisnohopethathumanitycan“re-group”intimetocontinuetowreakthesame levelofdamage. It is in thedeath throesofmoderncivilization, though,where thegreatest threat lies.Before ithasbeensoreduced inpower that it isunable tocontinuetheassault, thebodyofGaiamaybeseverelyweakenedbytheeffectsofadesperatestrugglefordecliningresources.AnacceptedexpertontheEarthsystem,JamesLovelock,inearly2006,made

oneof thegloomiest forecasts todate,prophesying that it isallbut too late toprevent the environmental changes that will lead to the demise of moderncivilizationandthedeathofahugeproportionofthehumanpopulation,andthatweshouldprepareforaretreattothefewhabitableplacesthatwillbeleft.1It is an extraordinary state of affairs that the span of a human life might

includenotonlythefirstawarenessanddeclarationofanenvironmentalcrisis,theemergenceofcoherentdiscussionandresearch,theestablishmentofrelevantdata, theproposalofsolutions(whichengagescience,philosophy,politics,andreligion),andanactiveresponsetosuchacrisis(atalllevelsfromtheindividualtotheglobal),butalsothewitnessingofafinalityofsuchproportionsastomake

allsuchenterprisesentirelyredundant.Wemight look to the effect of Rachel Carson’sSilent Spring, published in

1963, for one of the earliest signs that the humanist concerns of the post-Renaissance era were beginning to yield. “The ‘control of nature,’” Carsonwrote, “is a phrase conceived in arrogance, born of the Neanderthal age ofbiology and philosophy, when it was supposed that nature exists for theconvenienceofman.”2Itwould,ofcourse,bepossibletodrawupalonglistofearlier defenders ofwild nature and the rights of other species (whichwouldsurely include John Ruskin, Jean Jacques Rousseau, William Wordsworth,WilliamBlake,HenryDavidThoreau,JohnMuir,AlbertSchweitzer,andAldoLeopold). Yet, as Roderick Nash in The Rights of Nature has asserted, “Theemergenceof[the]ideathatthehuman-naturerelationshipshouldbetreatedasamoralissueconditionedorrestrainedbyethicsisoneofthemostextraordinarydevelopments in recent intellectual history.”3 The sense that environmentalethics is revolutionary is taken for granted in environmental thought, evenpromptingtheextravagantclaimfromNashthatthisethicsis“arguablythemostdramatic expansion of morality in the course of human thought.”4 Suchstatements suggest a willingness to imagine pre-modern consciousness assomethingakintothatofourownday,yetbearingtheadditionalhandicapofanundevelopedmoralsense.The irony is that theso-called“expansion” is takingplacewithinamilieuthatisbeyonddoubtfarmoredestructivetowardsnature,and generally farmore oblivious to its “rights” than ever before. The damageinflictedinthepastwastrivialincomparison,bothintermsofscaleandseverity,and a relative harmonywith nature prevailed for thousands of years, not justamongprimalpeoplesbutinmostagrariancultures.Itisperhapsonlywhenwestepbackfromanimmersioninourowntimesand

surveythepastwithasympatheticeyethatwebecomeawareofthisfactandareledtowonderaboutwhatlayattheheartofthisdifference.Certainlyitiseasytoforget, in all themental hubbub of philosophical and legal definitions and theformulation of elaborate arguments to show how and why the environmentshould be saved, that we are dealing now, as in the past, with a response tonature not based on reason, but on feeling orperception. Peter Hay, inMainCurrentsinWesternEnvironmentalThought,expressesitthus:

The wellsprings of a green commitment—at both the activist and morepassive levels of identification—are not, in the first instance, theoretical;nor even intellectual. They are, rather, pre-rational. . . . It is a deep-felt

consternationatthescaleofthedestructionwrought,inthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury,andinthenameofatranscendenthumanprogression,upontheincreasinglyembattledlifeformswithwhichwesharetheplanet.5

Thisinsightiscrucialandmaybetakenasapointofdepartureforabookthatdealswithbeauty.For,theterm“pre-rational,”here,bothsuggeststhesenseofnon-rationalexperienceandhintsatacorrespondingmodeofconsciousnessthatcomespriortodiscursivethought.Inpartingcompanywithaforward-marchingrationalityandinsteadsettingouttoinvestigatethepathofthepre-rational,weareinevitablyledtowardsanencounterwithanearlierunderstanding.Alongthissamepathliesbeautyanditsorigin,fortheperceptionofthebeautyofnatureisjust as evidently not first and foremost a conceptual reality but an experiencewhich,whenitmanifestsdeeply,arisesbeforethought.Hay’sappraisalprovidesanopeningintothewholequestionofbeautypreciselybecauseitisaconclusionwhichlacksbutinvitesaninitialpremise.Ifitbeaskedwhythelossofnatureislamentedsodeeply,itcanonlybebecauseweappreciateinnatureaqualityorqualities of a subtle order that we treasure, love, or find meaningful orsignificant. And since beauty in nature is an almost universally experiencedquality, it is perhaps beauty thatmost invites study.The quest to discover thefundamentalnatureofbeautyisalsoasearchforthedeepestrootsofperception.A return to fundamentals suggests the entiremovement of thiswork,which

finds its justification in the profound need to recover a lost wisdom. For thephilosopherSeyyedHosseinNasr,

the environmental crisis is so critical that it is necessary to quickly gobeyondwhathasbeendoneduringthepastfewdecadestosolveit.Whatisrequiredisthere-examinationofourveryunderstandingofwhatitmeanstobehumanandofwhatnature is,alongwith there-establishmentof theharmonybetweenmanandnature.6

Itisinthespiritofansweringtothisrequirementthatthesearchfortheoriginofbeauty isundertaken.However, travelling in the landofbeauty is fraughtwithdifficulties,notleastbecausereason,obligedtotakepart inthejourney,wouldprefertobetheguideaswell,convincingus,perhaps,thattheterrainisunstable;thattrailsembarkeduponwillprovetobedeadends,obligingonetoreturnandset out once again; that others will give way altogether and prevent anydiscovery. Alternatively, it may claim that each person’s trip must be an

expedition undertaken alone, and therefore thatwhat one attempts to describemaybecounteredbyahundredotherequallyvaliddescriptionsofthelandscape.Orworse, that the travelhasbeen illusoryafterall: there isnosuch land—thetravellerhasnotsteppedbeyondtheirownimagination.Themodernageisthefirsttohavedeniedtherelevanceandeventhereality

of beauty. If beauty now seems vague and nebulous, subjective and open todebate, it isbecauseweareused to thepronouncementsofmodernscienceonsuchmatters, and sciencehas failed tomeasurebeauty.No account of beauty,therefore,wouldbepossiblewithoutunderstandingtheinfluenceofthescientificenterprise.As inheritors of the greatmovement in human thought that slowlytook place over more than five hundred years, and which comprises thenominalismofthelaterMiddleAges,thehumanisticthoughtoftheRenaissance,thescientificrevolution,andEnlightenmentrationalism,wenow“inhabit” twoworlds. The first is circumscribed by the boundaries of empirical method.Science, through the use of instrumentation and by reasoning, has provided amentalpictureofauniversecomprisingstar-filledvoid,orbitingplanets,andacomplexorganizationofatoms,elements,molecules,aminoacidsandproteins.In thisworld composed ofmatter and psyche, beauty has a tenuous existenceconsigned to the subjective realm of individual consciousness. Virtually allaesthetictheoryissubordinatetotheassumptionthatbeautybelongsonlytothissubjectiverealm.Whenbeautyhasbeencontainedinthebrain,asitwere,it ismorelikelythatphilosophywillbesatisfiedwithconceptualizingit,determiningthecriteriabywhichbeauty is tobeassessed rather thanseeking theoriginofbeauty elsewhere. In his introduction toTimeless Beauty, thewriter and artistJohnLaneadmits,

thehistoryofaestheticsislitteredwithunsuccessfulattemptstorationalizeand systematize this hugely evanescent experience. In the course ofresearching this work, I read a number of books on aesthetics, but nonetookmeclosertoanyunderstandingofthebeautiful;oftentheopposite.Somuchabstract,cerebralspeculationmayeventakeoneawayfromthevividbeautyofasprayofcherryblossom.7

Lane perceptively identifies here the problematic nature of aesthetic theory.Whetherweendorsetheobjectiveposition(thatbeautyinheresintheobject)ofphilosophers like Plato andAristotle,8 or the subjective position (that it existsonly in the experiencer’s mind) of those such as Hume, Kant, and Edmund

Burke,9isbesidethepoint.Toimagineonehascapturedbeautywithinthenetofelaboratedescriptionistoconfusethedescriptionofbeautywithbeautyitself.Itis to invite both surprise and disappointment, for the net, in fact, containsnothingofsubstance.Lanerightlyseesthatbeautyresideselsewhereandthatitsmanifestationinconsciousnessreliespreciselyonnotcastingthenetinthefirstplace, on not conceptualizing. This might suggest, after all, that nothingworthwhile can be written about beauty. Three points may persuade usotherwise.Firstly,ifweapproachbeautybywayofinvestigatingthepathofthepre-rationalwemay hope to avoid the impasse towhich an exclusive faith inrational discourse brings us. Secondly, if we skirt the quagmire of debatesurroundingthenatureofartandthecriteriaofartisticjudgment,andinsteadarecontent to tread a path familiar to all—that of natural beauty—we arestraightawayonfirmerground.10Thirdly,ifwhilejourneyingtowardsbeautywearealsointerestedinwhateverallowsittobeseenmoreclearly,weareatonceinvolved in praxis—in a practical application of aesthetics. Seeking toinvestigate the subject consciousness and its perceptive capacity is a way ofavoiding the pitfall that is the chief failing of aesthetics: its externality to itsobject.11Beauty,thetwentiethcenturyphilosopherTheodorAdornoclaimed,isnottobeunderstoodfromtheoutside,butfromanimmersioninit.12Agoalofthis book is to demonstrate the validity of a subjective or epistemologicalapproach to beauty, and show how a seemingly limited or narrowway opensontoamuchbroaderavenueallowingavisionofbeautywhichvastlytranscendswhatwefirstsee.Thepathopenstouswhenwestandbeforenatureandacknowledgethatwhile

we may imagine the conceptual, extrapolated, world of science referred toabove,wedonotactuallyexperienceit.Instead,weexperienceanotherworldofvery different proportions,makeup, relationships, operations, and qualities. Itscompass extends to the horizon, and to the sky over our head. The sun, acomparativelysmallobject, rises,moves,andsetsoveranearlyflat landscape.Normally,weknowonlywhatoccurs inour immediateenvironment,whatcanbeseenandheardandtouched.Whenweencountertheworld’svariedformsoflife,anditsmountains,rivers,andseas,theseentitiesdisplaynosignsthattheyaresomehowinvestedwiththeclassificationsofgeologyorbiology,orthattheyarecompositesofcarbon,hydrogen,andoxygen,ormoleculesandgenes,orthatthey operate mechanically or unconsciously. Before we subject nature tomeasurementitdisplaysforusonlyimmediatelyperceptiblequalities.Theperceptionofbeauty innaturemaybe termedan immediateor intuitive

responsetoaworldthatisnotofourmaking,tothedazzlingarrayofbrightness,colour, form, sound, scents and textureswe experience.Oneof the significantaspects of thisworld is that it is alive and engaged in an ongoing process ofunfoldingwhichourcreationsdonotmanifest.Weseemtostandinthepresenceof something that, because it infinitely transcends our own being, ourunderstanding, may provoke a reaction that is quite extra-ordinary. In theimmediacyofourencounterwith thequietgreenof rainforest,or the limitlessexpanseofdesertunderavastbluesky,thesoundofwavesmovingoversand,or the star-filled vault at night—if one is not assessing, analyzing,conceptualizing,oranticipating,but just listening, looking, touching,breathing—theremaycomeasenseofawe,thesublime,profoundbeauty,thesignificanceofwhichseemstofarsurpassordinaryconsciousness.Itisthisprofoundsenseofbeauty—theaestheticexperience itself—that is a central concernof thisbook:the pre-rational experience of beauty, rather than theories concerning thebeautifulwhichreasoniswonttooffer.Thevalidityofanimmediateperceptionoftheworldiswhatphenomenology

attests.Yet,whilethephilosophyofHusserlandHeideggerdrewattentionawayfrom the conceptualworld constructed by scientific rationalism and towards amoreintuitiveandtraditionalwayofseeingtheworld,it isunabletorepresentall that thetraditionalperspectiveembraces.Andthisisbecause,havingarisenconsequenttotheworldviewthatmodernscienceimposed,itexistsnowintheshadowofscience,andis thereforecutofffromthelightofwhatwentbefore.Indeed, nearly all modern thought is coloured by the paradigm of modernscience, including philosophy, sociology, psychology and anthropology. Asdistinctiveexpressionsofalimitingdoctrine,theyhavebeenencapsulatedbytheterm“modernism”byabodyofwriterswhodistinguishwhatisreallyarecentanomalousvision fromanage-old andvirtuallyuniversalone.13 In journeyingfromthelonelyoutpostofmodernismbackacrossdesolatewaterstoaforgottenshore where beauty’s real nature resides, I offer as guides the expounders oftraditionalist thought,uncommonlydiscerningwhenitcomestonavigatingthepast.“Traditionalism”standsinoppositiontomodernism.Inonesenseitmightbe

said to have had its birth in the perennialist “school” of René Guénon, theFrenchmetaphysicianwhosedevastatingcritiqueofthemodernWest14helpedtofocus or inspire thewritings of various intellectuals in the second half of thetwentieth century.Yet, thiswouldbe to payundue attention to themessenger,and riskoverlooking thekey fact that themessage itself—the sophia perennis

—concernsanalways-existingandunchangingwisdom.Theessentialconditionof thiswisdom is aparticipativeperception towhich human consciousness isalways potentially heir—a vision that is both revelatory and inspirational. Itsmanifestationisthegenesisofmanytraditionalteachings,theesotericessenceofareligion,andtheunderstandingbehindmuchgreatartandpoetry.SuccessorstoGuénon, who have continued to explicate the sophia from different vantagepoints,arenownumerous,andmanyareincludedinthisbook.15FrithjofSchuon—whose seminal The Transcendent Unity of Religions16 (published in 1953)must be considered providentially suited to our eclectic times—speaks from aprofound knowledge of a number of different spiritual traditions, whileremaining always mindful of the foundational vision upon which theirmetaphysics are built. Others, such as Philip Sherrard, aremore concerned toenunciate the sophia as it is channelled by a particular religious tradition.Complementing these authors are those like Kathleen Raine—not part of thislineage—who seek the sophia outside these channels in the “living source”within. The writings of more diverse thinkers, such as Aldo Leopold, DavidBohm, or David Ehrenfeld—more or less independent of the traditionalistinfluence,butfamiliarfortheirdeepmistrustofmodernism—lendsupporttothevisionoftheseguides,andhelptoclosethedistancebetweenmodernismandthetraditionaloutlook.It is indeed the oft-assumed dichotomy of scientific “truth” and religious

“belief”thatmakesurgenttheneedtosavetrueintellectualityfromcontinuingtofall prey to the stranglehold ofmodern science. If it be thought reasonable toidentify “Darwinian” thought as lending the chief support to the scientificoutlook—evendetermining it—then the significanceof thebook’s titlewillberecognized.Toprovideacounterpointtotheubiquitousandinsistentmelodyofmaterial evolution is to bring back depth and richness to an otherwise flatcomposition.Sciencedecrees that theworldbemeasurable, andestablishes itsrealityuponjustthiscriterion.Beautycannevermakeitshomeinsuchaworld,for there ithasnochancetorevealall that it is.Anintuitionof this truth,ofamysteriousnon-materialortranscendentquality,makestheusualempiricalrulesweapplytothingsseemabsurdlyinadequate.Suchanintuitionliesattheheartofreligionasmuchasattheheartoftheenvironmentmovement.Itisprecious,butalsoprecarioussinceithastoendurearationalitythatwouldmakebeautyapart of the world science describes. This is why to envisage this subtlest ofentitiesasbelongingtoanotherrealmentirelyistotakethefirststepawayfromthemodernistworld.Beauty’sroleascatalystbeginshere.Re-establishingalink

with theworldof tradition requiresovercoming the restrictivebarrier imposedbymodernscience,andbyitsverynaturebeautylendswingstosuchaventure.Thedetermination to keepbeauty in sight, to dwell upon it and so allow it todwellwithinourbeing,iswhatfacilitatestheprocessofreturn.Now,althoughenvironmental thoughthas roots ina secular,humanisticand

scientificpast,itmaintainsawillingness,inviewofthedesperatetimesinwhichwe live, to engage with all ideas—whether contemporary or historical—indefence of nature. Environmental philosophy, the area of philosophical studythatdealswithenvironmentalethics(or thequestionofmoralcommunity)andwitharedefiningofthehuman-naturerelationship(whichinvolvesquestionsofepistemologyandontology),hasopenedthewaytoanintelligentreappraisaloftheconceptualresourcesofthegreatreligioustraditions.However,thisformofenvironmental discourse often proceeds from a human-centred perspective,whereourseeminglyuniquestandingasmoralagentsorrationalbeingsenablesustomakejudgmentsandpronouncementsregardingnature.Ecophilosophy,ontheotherhand,attemptstoshiftthisframeofreferencebyplacingnatureintheposition of central importance. The term “ecocentrism” describes a radicaloutlookwhereanacceptanceoftheintrinsicvalueofthenaturalworldrequiresthatwe transcendourmerelyhumanassessmentsof itand thusextinguishanyclaimtosovereigntyover it.Sinceecocentrismisnowanestablishedprinciplewithin ecophilosophy, one of ecophilosophy’smajor undertakings has becomethe identification of just those conceptual resources that serve to support thisnewvisionandtherejectionofthosewhichdonot.Certainly, the paramount importance of the natural world can hardly be

denied.Itisthesinequanonofthewholephilosophicventure,simplybecauseitis the foundation which upholds human life itself. This is why it is held asaxiomatic in what follows that a humanistic and anthropocentric approach tophilosophyisnolongerdefensible,andwhytheecocentrismofecophilosophyisafocusofinterest.Yet,ifecophilosophyearnstherighttorespectfulattention,itdoessomorebyvirtueofrelinquishinggenuinelyoutwornphilosophiesthanbyits perspicacity.When vision lacks acuity, not onlymaywe overlookwhat isnormallyapparentbutwemaybepersuaded toseewhat isnot thereatall.Toapplythismetaphortoecophilosophyistofindadequatereasontoquestiontheworld it shows us, to look again at what it has passed over, and to seek therenewalofavisionallbutobscured.

FOOTNOTES

1JamesLovelock,TheIndependent,January16,2006.2RachelCarson,SilentSpring(London:HamishHamilton,1963),p.243.3 Roderick Nash, The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics(Sydney:PrimaveraPress,1990),p.4.4Nash,TheRightsofNature,p.7.5 Peter Hay, Main Currents in Western Environmental Thought (Sydney:UniversityofNewSouthWalesPress,2002),pp.2and3,author’semphasis.6SeyyedHosseinNasr,“ManandNature:QuestforRenewedUnderstanding,”Sophia,Vol.10,No.2(2004):p.6.7JohnLane,TimelessBeautyintheArtsandEverydayLife(Dartington:GreenBooks,2003),p.24.8See,forinstance,Plato’sSymposiumandAristotle’sRhetoric.9 See, for instance, David Hume’s “Of the Standard of Taste” in FourDissertations (1757); Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Judgment (1790); andEdmundBurke’sOntheSublimeandBeautiful(1757).10 The beauty of nature is readily agreed upon. It was TheodorAdornowhosaid,“Thesongofbirds is foundbeautifulbyeveryone;nofeelingperson . . .failstobemovedbythesoundofarobinafterarainshower”(TheodorAdorno,Aesthetic Theory [London: Continuum, 1997], p. 87). Kant refers us to, “Thesuperiorityofnaturalbeautyoverthatofart,”andwrites,“Amanwhohastasteenough to judge the products of fine art with the greatest correctness andrefinementmaystillbegladtoleavearoominwhichhefindsthosebeautiesthatministertovanityandperhapstosocialjoys,andtoturninsteadtothebeautifulinnature, inorder to find there,as itwere,avoluptuousness for themind inatrainof thought thathecannever fullyunravel. . . .Weshallourselves regardthischoiceofhiswithesteemandassumethathehasabeautifulsoul,suchasnoconnoisseurandloverofartcanclaimtohavebecauseoftheinteresthetakesinhis objects” (Werner S. Pluhar, trans., Critique of Judgment [Indianapolis:HackettPublishing,1987],pp.300-301).11RobertHullot-Kentorobserves:“Anyoneturningtoaestheticswouldexpectthat, to call itself aesthetics, itwouldbealliedwithwhat is exceptional in theexperience of its object. But what is discovered instead is a discipline thatthroughoutitshistoryhasworkedattheconceptualundergirdingofstandardsofbeauty, the sublime, taste, art’sdignity, andsoon,while failing toachieve the

standardof the experienceofwhat it purports to treat” (RobertHullot-Kentor,introduction to Aesthetic Theory, by Theodor Adorno [London: Continuum,1997],p.x).12“Wedon’tunderstandmusic, itunderstandsus,”hepithilywrote. (TheodorAdorno,Beethoven, ed. Rolf Tiedemann [Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1993], p. 15.)Hisprogramme—andadvice—was“touse the strengthof the subject tobreakthrough the fraud of constitutive subjectivity” (Theodor Adorno, NegativeDialectics,trans.E.B.Ashton[NewYork:Routledge,1990],p.xx).13 Lord Northbourne’s own account of modernism as “anti-traditional,progressive, humanist, rationalist, materialist, experimental, individualist,egalitarian,free-thinkingandintenselysentimental,”showshowbroadthetermis,andalsohowtheemphasison therolemodernscienceplaysmayvary.SeeLord Northbourne,Religion in theModernWorld (Ghent, New York: SophiaPerennis,1994),p.12.14SeeRenéGuénon,TheReignofQuantityand theSignsof theTimes (NewYork:SophiaetPerennis,1995).15 Besides those alreadymentioned—Guénon and Nasr—the significant onesinclude Frithjof Schuon, Martin Lings, Ananda Coomaraswamy, LordNorthbourne,TitusBurckhardt,WhitallPerry,WilliamStoddart,HustonSmith,Charles Le Gai Eaton, James Cutsinger, William Chittick, RamaCoomaraswamy,HarryOldmeadow,andRezaShah-Kazemi.16 Frithjof Schuon, The Transcendent Unity of Religions (Wheaton, Illinois:QuestBooks,1984).

PartOne

WILDERNESS

CHAPTERONE

LakePedder

Whatworkofphilosophydoesnotinsomewayhaveitsorigininreflectionsonpersonalexperience,whethertheybevoicedorremainastoryleftuntold?Whenthe subject isbeauty, itmaywellbegin inachild’s encounterwith thenaturalworld.Inthesummerof1972,myfather,havingbeentoldhemustseeLakePedder

before it was gone, took three of his children walking into what was thenconsideredtheheartoftheTasmanianwilderness,anareaencompassingnearlyathirdof the islandState.The lakeand its surrounds—oneof thegloriesof theearth—along with much of the south-western part of the island had beenpreserved against settlement due to amountainous and inaccessible terrain. Itwas now to be flooded to provide an impoundment for hydroelectricitygeneration,andbythefollowingyear its lifewouldbeatanend.Howeasytorecall that still afternoon, nearly forty summers past,walking upward throughfloweringmelaleucaandbanksiaandfirstglimpsing,fromthecrestofahill,thatwide lake, at peace under a shimmering sky filled with birdsong. There areplaces, they say, where the veil between this world and the next becomestranslucent,andtogazeuponthembringsanachetotheheart.Allhopethatthefateof this lakecouldbealteredwasover,asevennowthe floodwaterswerebackingupbehindadistantandunseendamandimperceptiblycreepingoverthesandsofPedder’sbeachfarbelow.Westayedonlyonenight,andIrecallnolaughterorhighspiritsaswepitched

campnearacreekbelowthedunes, thenwalkedbarefoot tothelake’sedgeasthe light faded from the sky. Such symbolism as might be found in standingbeforeadarkeninglandscapewouldnoteludeadultsensibilities.YetIwasonlydimlyawareofwhatitmeanttodestroysuchavastentity,orevenwhatitmeanttobeawitnessthereto.Thesoothingwatersconspiredtoremoveallobjectivity,impartingtheirownuntroublednature.Inthemorningmist,wesetoffforhome.Afterclimbingforanhour,wewere

in the sun and could turn to watch the white shroud covering the lake beingslowlyburnt away.More symbolism, offerednot to the eyes of the childwhowould never again see this place, but to the imagination of one who, half alifetimeandhalfaworldaway,mustnowbearwitnessnotonlytowhatwas,buttoeverythingthatsuchbeautyrepresents.Thereare thosewhowillbehaunted

byPedder’sbeautyfortherestoftheirlives.Nodoubtsomefeelthetragedyofherlossmorekeenly,thoughtheyhavesetdownnotawordinherpraise.Whoindeed can speak for the unfathomable grace with which nature occasionallydisplaysherwork?LakePedderembodiedjustthoseelementsthatenchanttheheartandeye.Its

beautywasinthecolourandlightthatradiatedfromit.Ananomalyamidsttheruggedmountains,rainforest,andplainsoftheSouthWest,itshoneasasapphireunder theblueheavenofsummer,orgloweddeepamethystunderstorm-filledskies. Its crystalline beach of white and pink quartz sand formed a gleamingwidecrescentthatcurvedaroundtoembraceitandthrewdazzlinglightupwardandoutontothesurroundinghills.Atitsedge,ambercolouredstreamsflowedbeneath stands of tea tree, fragrant and alive with insect hum, through dunescovered in greenmosses, and out across the sand to the transparent shallows.Whilethesunshone,itwasanaturalplayground.Thequietnessofduskbroughtwildlife to thewater’s edge.Andatnight, as constellationswheeledandmoreheavenly creatures traced their path overhead, it captured the stars and playedwiththelightofathousandsuns,sendingeachonedancingoveritswaves.For those who knew Pedder it seemed to represent the essence of natural

beauty,wherethevariouselementswhichgotomakeupanidealwilderness—flowing waters, open plains and forests, wildlife and wild-flowers—wererefined,distilled, andconcentrated inoneplace.Moreover, thehistoricalLakePedderremainsapreeminentexampleoftheconfluenceofthevariousstreamsthat arise from the theme of the beauty of the natural world. Here, therecognitionofnaturalbeauty,therefusaltoseethisbeauty,andthedestructionofbeauty,allcoalesceataparticulartimeandmarkthebeginningandtheimpetusoftheenvironmentmovementinTasmania.AlthoughthejewelthatwasPedderwascrushedinthegripofatechnologicalhubrisandanarrogancedeliberatelyblind to itsbeauty, the spiritof the lake flows likeagreatundercurrentwithinthismovement.Hiddenmostofthetime,itcanbediscernedinasigh,awistfullook, or the gleam in an eye when the name “Pedder” is mentioned; in thatstrangecombinationofpassionanddespairthatcanonlycomeaboutwhenonehasknownthebeautifulandthenseenitdestroyed.Yet,astheartistMaxAngusonceobserved,“Communicationbetweenthose

whohaveseenLakePedderandthosewhohavenot,hasalwaysbeendifficultandmust remainso.”1For, tospeakof thebeautyofPedder is tospeakof farmore than aesthetic appreciation in the usual sense. To choose Pedder as thestartingpointofabookaboutbeauty is toconsciously introduce that innature

whichhas thepower to transformour understandingofwhat beauty andwhatnature is. Ithas remaineda truism inenvironmental thought to say thatbeforewecanjustifiablypronounceuponwhatourrelationshiptonatureshouldbe,itisimportanttoestablishwhatthenatureofnatureis,andwhatourownnatureis.2Itisinthisrespectthatthebeautyofthenaturalworldmaybeseenasacatalystby which more profound philosophical questions regarding ontology andepistemologymaybebroughttothesurfaceandexamined.Thewilderness that Pedder exemplified has been identified as central to an

understanding of environmentalism and ecophilosophy.3 The naturewriters oftheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies,whoseworklaterbecameinfluentialinthe development of environmental thought, often extolled the value of wildnature, seeing in it a contrast to the human world and a remedy for theshortcomings of civilization. But in the twentieth century, the passion forwilderness established itself on a non-anthropocentric (or non-human-centred)platform.4However,itisnocoincidencethatthismanneroflookingatthings—of“absolutizing”nature—hasevolvedwithinacivilizationwherethecompletede-sanctification of nature had taken place and where traditional principlespertaining to the relationship between humanity and nature were alreadyforgotten. It is no longer possible to defend the conception of wilderness asnature that is unaffected by humans,without also denying the place of primalpeopleinnature,andwithoutdenyingtheirvisionwhichisatoncemoreholisticandmoresacred.Consideringthatpeoplehaveliveduponandmodifiedallthecontinents, “wilderness”must nowbe reconceived as largely untouched areas,wheretheprocessesofnaturecontinuerelativelyunhinderedbyhumanactions.Toembracetheideaofwildernesstodayistoacknowledgethatnature,lefttoitsowndesign,will continue tounfold in itsownway,and that there isa specialvalue in thisunfolding.Wildernessmightbe thought akin to “Gaia,” in that itexemplifiestheEarthsysteminitsautonomousmodeofbeing.Itiswhatusedtobedesignated“virginnature,” inviolablebyvirtueof itsbeingsacredcreation.As “unmodified nature,” it is an index by which to measure the relative“freeness” of nature that has been so modified. Its beauty, accordingly, is anindexbywhichtomeasurewhatbeautyinnatureis.Significantly,LakePedder layat theheartofanearlypristinewildernessof

considerablesize.No roadever reached itand,until1898,notevenawalkingtrack.Indeed,fewsawituntilaftertheSecondWorldWar.When,in1835,thefirst of the Tasmanian government surveyors, George Frankland, wrote of

Pedderhedescribeditasabeautifullake“lyingintheheartofthemostromanticscenery.”5In1837,JamesCalderwanted“toportraythebeautyofthisdelightfulandsecludedscene . . .weweremuchstruckwith the landscapeandconceivethat the most careless observer cannot behold Lake Pedder with the hundredpeaks of the Frankland Range without admiration and almost amazement.”6George Innes first sighted Pedder in 1896 and remarked: “Lake Pedder is abeautiful sheet of water about three miles across, bounded on the north by aruggedrange,ontheeastbyabeautifulwhitebeach,onthesouthbytheruggedwallsoftheFranklandRange,andwesttheSerpentinevalley.”Hebroughtbackthe firstphotographs,whichhehopedwouldgive“some ideaof thebeautyofthisgemofsouthernTasmania.”7However,forfiftyyearsafterthefirstwalkingtrackwasmade itwas known firsthandonly to a fewhardybushwalkerswhotook between one and twoweeks tomake the trip in. Its remotenessmeant itattained to near-mythological status. Then, in 1946, the photographer LloydJonesdiscoveredhecouldlandasmallaircraftonPedder’sbeach—exposedinthesummermonths—anditcametobevisitedandappreciatedbythousands.Yet,howcanonedescribeallthatitwas,orwhatitmeanttothosefortunate

enough to set eyeson itbefore itwasgone? InLakePedder, environmentalistBobBrown admits: “Pictures cannot portray Lake Pedder’s living complexityandchangingmoods.Norcanwordsconveythecompellingpresencewithwhichit bonded the people who went there.”8 And for Angus, “No map, nodescription, however detailed could remotely convey the sense of awe andwonderfeltbythosewhosawthisplace.”9This is perhaps the first thing to point out in our quest: the perception of

beautyis,andcanonlybe,animmediateperception.Beautyinnaturecannotbewhollygraspedbyre-presentingitinimage,whetherpaintingorphotograph,orthroughlanguage(arepresentationinabstractform),simplybecausethereferentisnotactuallypresent.Someofthesenseofbeautyevokedbytheoriginalmaybegleanedthroughthesemedia,butwearemistakenif,whenweseebeautyinaphotograph forexample,webelieveweareexperiencing thebeautyofwhat itrepresents.Wemaysay,“Thatisbeautiful,”yetwearenotreallytalkingaboutthe thing itself because we are not responding to it. Ultimately, we mustacknowledge that it is to the beauty of the photograph we are responding.Preciselybecausetherealityhassomuchmoresubstancetoit,issomuchmorecomplex, intricate, detailed, usually alive, far larger, and so on, it is essential,when gauging nature’s beauty, that the opportunity to experience it through

directperceptionisallowed.AndthishighlightsthetragicelementinthePedderstory,forvirtuallynoneofthepeopleresponsibleforthefateofthelakewenttoseeit.Beingpresentbeforenaturegivesusaccesstoallthatnaturemayreveal.And

this lived experience is, necessarily, holistic. The fallacy of imagining thatbeautycanbewithdrawnfromnatureandputintothereceptaclesofimagesandwords, is echoed in the notion that beauty is composed of separate elements.Reasoningmaywellidentifycomponentsofsensoryexperienceconnectedwiththeperceptionofbeauty innature—things like light,colour, form,and texture.Yet,wecannotsaythatbeauty is these things,anymore thanwecansay thatabeating heart or breathing is life. Similarly, using reasoned analysis to isolateaspectsofthephenomenologicalexperienceofbeautymaygiveusmuchthatisofinterest,butitdoesnotgiveustheexperience.Ifwefindbeautydisappearingundersuchanalyses,wemayjustlysuspectthereasoningprocessitselftobeinconflictwiththeaestheticexperience.Inwhichcase,theonlywaytotranscendparadox,anddevelopagreaterunderstandingofthesubtletythatisbeauty,istoview what follows—an appraisal of the more subtle elements that wereassociated with or seemed to heighten the sense of beauty for those whoexperienced Pedder—as a type of palimpsest where, beneath the surface ofthings,maybediscernedthehazyandindistinctoutlineofanotherlanguage.Wemustlook,asitwere,throughtheelementsofexperiencetowhattheexperienceindicatesaboutperceptionitself.Theabilitytoreadthe“language”ofperceptionis made possible because beauty is the subject of the main text. In thecontemplation of beauty, and not in its objectification, lies the means ofrefocusingourvision.

COMPLEXITYANDCONTINUITY

Lake Pedder bore the intricate marks of millennia on its face; and thiscannotbe, in the flickof awrist, even remotelyparalleled.To lookuponPedderasitwasgaveareassuranceofthecontinuityofnaturalequilibriumfromthemostmagnificenttothemostexquisitelysmall.10

The significanceof this statement byAngus lies in its contrastingof naturewith our ownworks,whether they be created by the flicking of amechanicalswitch which floods and irrevocably alters a natural landscape, or the deftwieldingofpaintbrushtocreatea landscapeoncanvas.Humanartefactsrarely

compare with nature, and this is because they lack the layer upon layer ofrichnessfoundinnature.Ifweexamineourownartisticworksindetail,wefindthey are all surface expression. They are a portrayal of their subject thatmasqueradesastherealthing,butuponcloseexaminationisseentobeillusory.And this need not be surprising, since the rawmaterials for our architecture,sculpture, painting, photography even, are rather simple “non living”compounds,basicelementsandmineralsdrawnfromtheearthitself.Allartusesnature;weeasilyforget,aswe“create,”thatwedosobydismantlingnature,andoftenbeautifulnatureatthat.In nature, we are able to look and look and find seemingly no end to its

richness. In theexaminationofahandfulofsand,orshellspiledon theshore;thereflectioninapoolofthemovementofcloudsintheskyorofsnowflakesastheyfall;theflowofwaterbetweentwodifferentcolouredstonesinamountainstream;thelichensononeofthosestones;ortheveinsinoneleafofonesmallplantthere—allthiswemustacceptasaminutefractionofwhatliesaroundus,because everything we see seems to be positioned about halfway between aninfiniterangeofbothgreaterandsmaller.Inconsideringwilderness,ornaturethathasnotbeengreatlymodifiedandis

still free to follow its own course, this richness is usually—perhaps always—greater thaninnaturethathasbeenmodified.Human-alteredenvironmentsareoften simplified ones, the number of species in a given locale and thepopulations ofmany of those species being diminished. This is certainly truewherecomplexecosystems,liketropicalortemperateforests,aremodified,andisprobablysoevenwhenareasofdesert—whichappearemptytooureyes—areconverted.Therichnessofnatureiscloselyassociatedwithitslong-termexistence.The

intricatemarksofmillennia, towhichAngusrefers,“gaveareassuranceofthecontinuity of natural equilibrium . . . [and] the effect on the spirit wasindescribablyhealing.”11Thelinkbetweennature’sundisturbedexpressionandthe sense of beauty has its parallel in the human sphere. We know of therelevanceofelapsedtimetoourowncreations,suchasthelustrouspatinaofanantique tabletop. By contrast, the removal of centuries of grime fromMichelangelo’s Sistine frescoes somehow seems like the removal of thoseintervening years—a putative good, since something seems to have been lost.AndwehardlyliketoimaginetheGreektemplethatnowliesbeforeus,ruinedbut clothed in beauty, as it was—pristine, and painted gaudily in primarycolours. Significantly, it is the hand of nature herself that, over time, lends

beauty to our art. Our works are subject to entropy from the day they werecreated,and,ifbeautyisperceivedtogrow,itisthroughnaturehavingreasserteditsinfluence.When,in1965,then,itwassuggestedthata“modification”bemadetoLake

Pedder,andthat itmightconsequentlybecomemorebeautiful, thiswasalmostuniversally rejectedas a foolish statement.Themodificationwouldutilize justoneelement—water—toobscure,ordestroyamultiplicityofexistingelements.Astheenvironmentalphotographer,OlegasTruchanas,expressedit,

Lake Pedder, to me, is the very heart of the SouthWest. When it is“modified”as it iscalled, intoa . . .big inlandsea, itwillnotbeamorebeautiful lake. Itwill be an artificialmanmadepond in themiddleof thenaturalwildernessarea.Itwillaffect,inmythinking,theentireatmosphere,theentiremake-upoftheSouthWest.12

As part of the water impoundment behind a new hydroelectric dam on theGordonRiver,itwasdeterminedthatthelakebefloodedtoadepthoffiftyfeet.Theseemingfailure,bythoseinvolvedinthisdecision,toappreciatethebeautyof Pedder, may be partially explained by the effect of post World War IItechnological vigour. Hydropowerwas seen as themeans bywhich the smallislandStatemightprogressmateriallyandcontributetowardsthewealthofthenation. Technology, industry, and economic development were consideredthroughoutthe1950sand’60sas,byandlarge,anunalloyedgood.Inthefaceofsuchpracticalconcerns, thereexistsadetermination tokeepsentimentatarmslength. Themind thatmust deal with technical andmechanical problems andsolutions tends to apply this same mindset to the environment. Technologybecomes the tool whereby the “machinery” of nature can be modified andharnessedtosuitourends.Itbecomesnecessaryto,asitwere,turnablindeyetothebeauty that is, nevertheless, always evident in amoment’s reflectionwhenone turns from the task at hand.Significantly, thosewhowere instrumental inseeingthattheproposalwouldeventuatedeclinedtovisitthesite:

Incredibly, at Parliament House, in Hobart, decisions of the gravestconsequence were reached by references to maps and documents alonewhiletherealitylaylessthansixtyairmilesfromtheseatofgovernment.13

Theaerial viewofPedderwasbreathtaking. It hasbeen said thatAmerican

helicopterpilotswhoflewthe investigativemissionsfor thegreatdamson theGordonandSerpentineriverswereastoundedatwhatwasbeingplanned,havingnodoubtthatathometheirowngovernmentswouldhavegonetoanylengthstopreserve such sites. When one Parliamentarian, Louis Shoobridge, waspersuadedtogotoPedder,theviewfromtheairwasdecisive:

Itwasfromaheightofabout2000feet . . . thatIcaughtsightof itandIthinkitwasthenthatIrealisedtheenormityofwhattheStatewasgoingtodo....Itwasnouselandingonthelakefloor...goinghomeandsayingit’sstillexpendable.Itwasn’ttomeanymoreexpendable.14

ButPedder’sgloriousseclusionhadworkedagainsther.Historically,toofewhadcomeunderherinfluence,andnowtoomanywereunwillingtobeswayedby“sentiment.”Itcanbesurmisedthatthosewhostayedawaysomehowknewtheyneeded to literally distance themselves fromwhatwas at stake.And it isthisthatindicatesbeautyismorethansubjectivejudgement.ThefactthatPedderhad a profound impact on those who experienced it suggests a two-wayinteraction between nature and ourselves. It suggests that beauty belongs tonature,butthatitcanbeignored,anditsinfluencecanbemaskedbyaparticularmentalproclivity.Angus isclear in this respect:“onlyone thingemergedwithanyclarity—somethingsupremelybeautifulwasabouttobedestroyed.”15

TRUCHANAS

Asenseofthebeautyinnatureveryeasilyevokesfeelingsofprotectivenessandobligation.Wearedrawn tobeauty, andwhenweare,wewant topreserve it.Olegas Truchanas (1923-1972) was one such lover of nature. It is sometimesgiventoémigrés(TruchanaswasfromLithuania)toseeintheiradoptedcountrywhat others do not see, and so re-awaken dulled sensibilities. As a walker,canoeistandphotographer,TruchanashaddelightedinPedder’swildbeautyandbecame deeply saddened by its imminent loss. An employee of the HydroElectricCommission inTasmania,he felthecouldnotbecome toooutspoken.However, in a great effort of altruism he almost single-handedly galvanizedpublicsympathyforthecauseofsavingPedderbythepublicpresentationofhisownphotographs of the lake, believing this could be done “without offendinganybody,”whileconveyinghis“veryspecialfeelingforLakePedder.”16

HereatlastwereimagestoevokePedder’s“subtleandmysteriousbeauty,”17

hermoodsandherglory.Truchanas’pictureshaveanunsur-passedqualityaboutthem,andheisrecognizedtodayasamasterofenvironmentalphotography.Inthemannerofanygreatartwork,theimagesheproducedreflectnotasamirror,rathertheycontainsomethingoftheartist’sperceptionorinsightintohissubject;they reflect an intimacy with, and an appreciation of, its essence. Hisphotographs are suggestive of an underlying quality lying beneath outer form,whichhehadseenandwasendeavouringtoshow.It seems reasonable to claim, from what he said as well as the images he

produced, thatTruchanasfullyacceptedthat thebeautywefindinnature isaninherentquality.Hedidnotdeigntoquestionitsreality,muchlessfeeltheneedtosubjectit toanalysisasascientist(orphilosopher)might,butunhesitatinglyaccepteditaspartofthenatureofnature.Hisphotographsare,indeed,testimonytothisrecognition.Inotherwords,hewasnotsaying,“Thisismyinterpretationofwhatisthere”;hewasattemptingtocapturewhathebelievedexisted:

Thisvanishingworldisbeautifulbeyondourdreamsandcontainsinitselfrewards andgratificationnever found in artificial landscape, ormanmadeobjects, so often regarded as exciting evidence of a new world in themaking.18

Forthesakeofthispreciouscontent,weshould,hesaid,“trytoretainasmuchaspossibleofwhatstillremainsoftheunique,rareandbeautiful.”19We have no more-detailed expositions from Truchanas which would have

shed more light on his thinking. Tragically, he would never publish; he diedwhilegatheringmorephotographicmaterial.His legacy, instead, resides in thevisual record hemade of the beauty of Tasmania’swilderness, and especiallyLake Pedder, andwemay be content that this is indeed the expression of histhought.As the lake was filling, the campaign to save Pedder continued with great

vigour, and from it came some of the most impassioned declarations of theexistence innatureofaquality thatcannotbemeasured in theusualempiricalway, but which is nonetheless considered as real as any quantifiablecharacteristic.Itwasleft toAngustofashionfromTruchanas’simplelanguageanelegy inprose to reveal thespiritwithin theman that responded tonature’sspirit, and drove him to return time and again to this wilderness. He wouldfashion, too, from the disparate thoughts and writings of the campaigning“Pedderpeople,”atestimonythatbespokeahiddenessencewithinPedderwith

thepowertomovethehumanspirit.Whatheattested,andwhathesoeloquentlyenunciatedbeforeaSenateSelectCommitteeofEnquiryintothefateofthelake,wasboththeinescapablerealityofthisessence,andawayofknowingthatwentbeyondtheusualsensoryorrationallimits.

SENSEOFPLACE

High above the lake,where thewalking trackbegan the descent to the beach,Pedder could be encompassed in a single sweep of vision. In this, it wasexceptional.Sooftenitisthecasethatsomethreatenedareaoftheworld,suchas river or forest, is too extensive to be seen as a whole, making it hard tovisualize.Yet,allofPeddercouldbepointedtoanddescribed.Itcouldbekeptinthe mind’s eye, and herein lies an explanation for the strong sense of placevisitors experienced. Pedder was an obvious locus, a place in the way that aroominahouse,abuildinginastreet,oraparkorsquareinatownisaplace.Asaself-containedentity, itwassomewhere togo,reside in,beatpeacefromthat which surrounded it, whether that be conceived as the immediatewilderness, or the artificialworld one had left behind.The lake itselfwas nothuge—aboutfoursquaremilesofwater.Itwasencircledbymountainsandhills.Onemightventureintothem,yetthelake,itsbeachanditsdunes,remainedthefocalpoint,aplacetoreturnto.Thewaterofthelakewasshallowandwarminsummer, safeeven forchildren.Pedder’sgeomorphologywas theembodimentofanurturingandprotectiveenvironment. InMaryHewitt’swords,“Inaveryruggedarea,itwashome—itwasshelter,andprotection.”20Itisalmostimpossiblenottoevokeherethesenseofthefeminine,andIhave

already used the term “her”when referring to Pedder. Environmental thinkerslearn to be wary of such easy designations; one is not supposed toanthropomorphizenature thesedays,orat leastnot remainunawareofwhat isbeingdone.Andyet,until recently, itwasanobviouswayofexpressingwhathas always been a fundamental intuition about nature—that it is animate orconscious.

CONSCIOUSNESS

Even an early environmentalist, Aldo Leopold (whose writings are to bediscussedshortly),was,whendescribingnature,inthehabitoflendinghuman-likeconsciousnessandwilltoanimals,birds,trees,andevenrivers.Thetreesonhislandaremasculineentities,almostconsciousoftheirroleinprovidingfood

orshelterforthebirdsthatcometositintheirbranches.Ariverwilldeliberately“procrastinate,” and consciously seek a particular way to the sea. If there isanythinginthistoobjectto,itis,perhaps,thatitdoesnotdoadequatejusticetothetraditionaloutlook.Forstrictlyspeakingitisnotpantheism(whichconsiderstheexistenceofindividualconsciousagentsinnature),butpanentheism (whichtreats thewholeofnatureasaliveandconscioussimplybecauseitshareswithhumanityacommonultimategroundofbeing),whichistheuniversalheritage.AsHarryOldmeadowhasobserved,

In reality, pantheism, if ever it existed as anything other than ananthropologicalfiction,couldneverhavebeenmorethanadegenerateformofwhat is properly called “panentheism,”which is to say a belief in theoverwhelmingpresenceofthespiritualwithinthenaturalworld.21

The failure of this vision and the confusionnow surrounding it are, as shouldbecomeclear,bothrootedintheanomalythatismodernscience.Indeed,itisameasure of the influence of the modern scientific outlook and the empiricalmethodthatinformsit,thatgreenthoughtisnowwaryofpantheistictendencies.Reflecting current scientific knowledge, there may be a growingacknowledgement of developed awareness within some animals. By the sametoken,thereislittletolerancefortheideaofawarenesswithintrees,“inanimate”matter, or the earth as a whole. And the subtlety of interpretation thatanthropomorphism calls for is likely to be lost altogether in the scramble toremain objective, in which case anthropomorphism will be labelledanthropocentric to the extent that it conceives of nature in terms of our ownparticularviewpoint,which,becauseitisonlyours,doesnotdescribeaqualitythatisactually“outthere.”Setting aside these observations for now, it is nevertheless true that even a

“casual”readingofanthropomorphismhasthepotentialtocreateforusaricherbeauty,becauseitisinkeepingwithourownnaturetolovewhatisanimateandconscious more readily than what is not; and while we may love what isbeautiful,wemoreeasilyseebeautyinwhatwelove.AgenerationafterLeopoldwe find few overt references to Pedder as “she,” but anthropomorphismcontinues inat least twoways,asfor instancewhenMelvaTruchanascansay,“the moods of the Lake were continually changing.”22 This form ofanthropomorphism is to ascribe to nature human traits in ametaphoric, ratherthan literal-minded, way. When it is said that the lake is “glowering” or

“sombre,”wearenotsayingthelakehasamood;morethatwefeelaparticularmood when experiencing, say, bad weather. This form of anthropomorphismmightbelikenedtoLovelock’sviewofGaia:aconsciousentitydoesnotexist,buttheworkingsofthenaturalworldenableonetodrawcomparisons.Anothersenseofanthropomorphism,though,suggeststheactualpresenceofa

somewhatconsciousentitythatshareshumantraits,aswhenPeterDonnellycanfind at Pedder, “the kindest balmy feeling—itwas there all day”23 ; orwhenKevinKiernansays,“Ihavelovedmany...wildplaces....ButonlyatLakePedderdid I feel somehow loved in return.”24Here,Pedder is experiencedassomething more than an inanimate object. This second sense ofanthropomorphism corresponds to the way some environmentalists like toappreciate theconceptofGaia—aconsciousentitydirecting, insomeway, theprocessesoflifeontheplanet.Inboth thesegradesof anthropomorphism, it is easy to see the “pantheistic

fallacy” reflected. When human consciousness is conceived as preeminent, itbecomes likeastandardbywhich tomeasureconsciousnesselsewhere. Inonesense,thisliberatesnaturetobemorethaninanimatething.Inanother,itactuallydelimitsnatureby requiring that itwearahuman-likemask.Onlyby trying torelinquishthisformofhumancenterednessdowepermitwhateverelseistheretorevealitself.Sometimestheconsequenceofremovingthemaskisthatatfirstweseenothingclearlyatall.

SYMBOLISM

Often the reaction toPedderdoesnot entail specific reference to an entitybutratherhintsatanindefinablequalitythatlies“behind”or“beneath”whatisseen,therecognitionorperceptionofwhichcannotbeshownorgiventoanother.Thefactthatitisreferredtoinvaguetermsshouldnottemptusintheleasttoassumethatthereferentisvaguealso—thereisnologicalconnectionhere;all thatcanbe deduced is that the nature of what is being experienced is not easilycommunicable. (The indefinable character of themore straightforward aspectsrelatingtobeauty,likecolourorsound—thescientificexplicationofwhichonlyhints at the experienced reality—helps to remind us of this.) The followingselections from Brown’s Lake Pedder betray the sense of reaching forunderlyingessence:

Iwasnotpreparedfortheenormousdynamicoftheplace,thecombination

ofgrandeurandintimacy.25

TherewasaspecialmagicaboutPedder:thatmuchisclear.Howelsemayone explain the passion, the almost mystical fervour, with which thesepeoplehavefoughtforitsretention...?26

Icanonlysaythatthatlakeissomethingquiteunique,quitedifferentfromany other place I have ever seen. . . . There is some quality about LakePedderwhichmakesitdifferent.27

“Responsiblepeople,”writesAngus,cogentlyformulatingsuchexpressions,

donotgetupsetasaruleaboutanissuefromwhichtheycanneverhopetogaina singlecent.Theyhavebeendeeplymoved inaway theycanonlycomprehend in terms of spiritual response, and know themselves to be inthe presence of something beyond themselves. It is this that has providedthemwiththefaithtocontinuetofightforthelifeofthislake.28

While allusions of this type seem to fall short of their target, a symbolistapproach may reach it, and begin to make clear what seems nebulous. Now,normally, tospeakofsymbolism is tospeakof thatwhichbygeneralconsent,represents or recalls something else. When this particular understanding isappliedtothenaturalworld,certainaspectsoftheenvironmentareseentobearanalogywiththelifeofthehumanbeing.Hence,wefindPedderreferredtoasthe“heart”oftheSouthWestWilderness.Lyinghidden,untouched,perfect,andunique,itwasconceivedtostandinrelationtothiswildernessasarealhearttothebodyofaperson,providinglife to thewholeand,while there,asense thatthewholewasunimpaired,itsintegritypreserved.Thus,Kiernan,inoneofthefinestpieceseverwrittenonPedder,would“wonderattheworthoffightingfortheremnantsofawildernesswhichhadhaditshearttornout.Thewholewillnotbehealthyagainuntilthatheartisrestored.”29Yet,tobeconvincedthatthiswayofrepresentingnaturecanbenomorethan

poeticanalogy is tosuccumbto thesameerror thatcanbemade in relation toanthropomorphism. As long as we believe we have arbitrarily imposed uponnaturesomethingofourselves,ratherthanbeguntouncoverabasictruthaboutnature,weareboundbyalimitedversionofsymbolism.If,ontheotherhand,we arewilling to draw a distinction between nature that is investedwith our

humanness and nature set free, we are on the way to a wholly differentunderstandingofsymbolism.For,naturesetfreeisnotnaturefreeofsymbolism,butnaturefreeoftheusualassumptionsaboutwhatsymbolismis.Traditionally,the whole of nature has been viewed as the expression of something whichtranscends the normally perceived outer form. In theway that a painting of arosemaybeheldtosymbolizeorrepresenttherealthing,so,analogously,naturemay be regarded as a symbol for something more real. That is to say, itsnormallyperceivedexpressionistakentobeasimplifiedorless-richrenditionofwhat its overall reality is; its straightforward appearance “concealing” or“containing”anotherlevelofrealityaltogether.Symbolismofthistypemaybebest illustratedherebyinvokingKiernan’sexperiencewhileobservingafriendatLakePedder:

Asshegazedacrossthelakesheseemedtobecomeonewithit,andbothofthem seemed to become part of something greater. I can’t explain thatsensation.[Her]visionofPedderwasasanexpressionofthedivine.30

Here, theunderlyingordeeper reality isnotanaspectof themoreoutwardorsuperficial one; this would be to reverse the true ordering and confuse thesymbol with what is being symbolized. Instead, the world we normallyexperienceisbutanaspectofwhatwedonotsee.Nordothetwobearthesamerelationship toeachotheras theydo in the familiarversion,where thesymbolreally exists in an abstract elsewhere. Here, there is no question of amanufactured analogy. The more real and the apparently real are coexistent,being not different things but different modalities. Understandably, however,naturecanonly“become”symbolicinthiswaywhenthefamiliarexperienceofnature can be compared with a deeper reality. Clearly, this comparison is notalwaysmadebecause thedeeper level isnotalwaysknown.Tospeak, then,ofthistypeofsymbolismis,inevitably,tobetalkingofperceptionaswell;whatisperceivedreliesonperceptivecapacity.

ENVIRONMENTALETHICS

In the end, Pedder was lost, drowned under many fathoms of floodwater. Itsdemisewasfeltkeenly,likethelossofabelovedfriend.Havingstaredintothefaceofthosewatersfromhighabove,onecouldeasilyfindcausetopersonifyitasalivingpresenceofbeautyonearth.Whenithadbeeneffaced,thewordsofone QC left some reason to dream: “There is very fortunately, in this case,”

declaredEdwardStJohn,“anopportunitytorepent....Ifnotweourselves,thedaywillcomewhenourchildrenwillundowhatwesofoolishlyhavedone.”31The treatment Pedder suffered was not unique. Who, reading this, cannot

recallaplaceofbeautywhichonceexistedandnowisgone?Howweshrink,confusedandoutraged,fromwhathasreplacedit,asthoughwepersonallyhavebetrayed the naturewe once loved.And how at a losswe are to convey suchfeelingstothosewhoseemindifferenttothisbeauty.Yet,wouldwefalterbeforethewholly unfamiliar opportunity to set things right again? Lake Pedder wasnearly resurrected at the turn of the century. Incredibly, a geo-morphologicalstudy showed thebeach (now the lake floor) tobe intact; coveredbyonly thethinnestlayerofsilt,thesandstilldisplayeditscharacteristicripples.Engineersdeemedthedrainingfeasible.Whenthewatershadreceded,thelostvegetationwouldreturn,creepingdownthehillstofillthedesolatebasin,perhapsinonlyyears. But it did not happen. Somehow, the lake as it had become swayedpopular imagination. Does repentance, then, last but a generation, or is it ourtrustwhichfailsus?Once,Ireveredanddrewsolacefromtheoldjudge’swords.NowIamnolongersureitwouldbeagoodthingtoreclaimwhatweoncehad,perhapsbecauseInolongerhavefaiththatwewouldknowhowtomanagetheconsequences.Mightwehavetolivewithyetmoreregrets?WhenthesunlastshoneonPedder’sface,therewasno“ecotourism.”Leftalone,nomorecanbedonetodesecrateit;resurrectitandwewouldhavethechancetodestroyitalloveragain.Forall thewayswecoulddo thisweneedonly look toanyof theonce-beautiful areas of the world that have succumbed to the unendingrequirementsof thosewhodemandtosee them.Suchoutcomesareasignthatthebeautyweinitiallyrespondtoisnotmatchedbyaninnerperception,thatwehavenotbeautyenoughwithin to reciprocate inkind. Ignorancebeforebeautymakes ruinous the hand raised to touch it, and since, as time passeswe seemever less able to put forth a handwithout destroying, our ignorance becomesmore evident. Pedder, snatched away in innocence, has guaranteed amemorysoul-wrenchinglybeautiful.Weshouldbegratefulforthisatleast.

*

A mountain stands behind Tasmania’s southern capital; a vast sandstone anddoleritesentinelwhosebuttressesarethehillsuponwhichthecityclings.Foratime,myfamilylivedinoneofthevalleysattheveryedgeofthesettledareas,anditwaspossibletowalkfromasuburbstillentangledinthebush,upalong

the mountain’s winding tracks where, in spring, wattles blazed yellow in thesunlightandsilverpeppermintsmadetheairheadywithscent.Climbingforanhour or two, and skirting the last soaring columnsof rock three thousand feetabove the Derwent River, a great plateau opened up. Here, cushion plants,pineapple grass and kerosene bushmingled with lichen-covered boulders andexquisite rockpoolswhereendemicmountainshrimpswam.Walkingoutoverthis gently sloping plain, one first heard the trickle of water as tiny streamsbegan tomerge.The river that formed ledpast hugeboulder fields, over rockledges,andthentoawaterfall.Facingsouthwest,therewerenomorehousesorroads,onlytheconvolutedandthicklyforestedcontoursofamysteriousworld.Lostinthebluehazesomewhereouttherewasthenew“Pedder,”andallaroundherrangeuponrangeofhighmountains. In thewinter, thesnow-cappedpeaksshonewhiteunderawintersun;andinthesummer,longafterthemeltingsnowshadturnedstreamsandriversintofoamingtorrents,somewerestillwhitewiththegleamofquartzite.Atthefootof thesemountains,underthetrees’canopy,where leatherwoodblossomandswallowtailedbutterfliesdrifted in thefilteredsunlight, limestone caves had once offered shelter to the first nomadicinhabitants of this country before they journeyed on to the open buttongrassplains of the southwest coast. Their first passage through this landscape wasmadeperhapstenthousandyearsagoafterice-ageglaciershadretreated.Theirlast came less than two hundred years agowhen their linkwith the landwasforciblybrokenbytheEuropeaninvasion.Overtheyears,alongwithoneortwocompanions,Iwouldcometoknowsomeoftheplacesinthatwildlandknownto them. For many who grew up in Tasmania or came to live there, thewildernessbecameanalternativedwellingplace,holdinganattractionseeminglyprimordial.Here,itwaspossibletowalkformanydaysandcomeacrossnothingreminiscent of civilization. The countenance of thosewho returned from suchexpeditionswaschanged.Andwhen theystrode through thecity’sstreetswiththebushwalker’sstride,itwasasthoughtheywereonlypassingthroughanddidnot really belong there. Even those who had spent but a day or two in thewildernessknewtheyhadexperiencedtherealTasmaniaandhadnowreturnedtoaworldofdiminishedsignificance.Tobecomenomadicforatimewastoloseinterestin,orcommitmentto,thelifeofthetown.Yet,ifitbecameanunstatedmaximthatitwasonlytothebushwalkerthatthewildernessreallyspoke,andif“green”thinkingwasoftensparkedbyimmersionintheworldknowntothefirst“Tasmanians,”neverthelessonemustretreatfromitinordertoexploreinsteadalandscape of thought fashioned in the attempt to understand this mysterious

beautyandourrelationshiptoit.Once, when returning from the Vale of Rasselas, where the Gordon River

swingswestwardandescapes throughanarrowgorgebefore itswildenergyisspent upon the indifferent body of the new dam, we were frozen by anunexpectedvision.Aboveadistanthill, inaclear sky,amushroomcloudwasslowly forming. Behind us, at one end of the long valley, lay Lake Rhona, aminiaturePeddercaughtinthecragsandcaughtintime,unchangedandscarcelyvisitedsincethedayswhennativehutsstoodupontheopenplainsbelow.Lessdistant, theplacewehad left atmidday, anoldhomestead in ruins, itsbeams,planks and shingles hewn from a single tree; once a hermit’s refuge from themodernworld,ithadexudedthepeaceofanotherage.Now,stampeduponthepale sky ahead, this hallmarkof the twentieth centurywas enough to stop thebreath,asmomentarilytheinconceivableimpresseditself.Nonoisereachedus,and the sweet air around remained still. Then, the faraway clatter of ahelicopter’s rotors brought comprehension: way to the south a clear-felledforestrycoophaderuptedinfire.Abushwalker’speaceofmindliesinafreedomfromthesightsandsoundsof

modernity, and especially from its destructiveness. It is a contrived illusionthough, and the long valley had carried us that day from a type of fool’sparadise,animmersioninaremnantoasisofbeauty,tofacetherealworld.SincePedder,thehighdamsthatdrownedthewildcountryhadbecometheuppermostconcern for environmentalists, and, by the early 1980s, the Franklin, “the lastwild river,” had been saved from inundation. Butwhile one beauty holds ourattention, another is lost.A desecration of unimaginable proportions had beenunfoldingacrosshiddenandholyplaces;awaragainsttheancientforestlandsofTasmaniawasbeingwagedwithincreasingferocityandskill.Thehelicopterweheardwasnottheretotacklethefire.Itwastheveryinstrumentofwar,broughttobearafteranothergreatstandofeucalyptshadbeenfelledanddraggedawaytobechipped.Spewingincendiariesofnapalm,ithadwreathedashatteredmassof rainforest in flame, a firestorm whose sudden ignition forced this colossalpillarofsmokeandashskyward.Thisfireofsacrifice,inwhichtheintricatesplendourofrainforestisburntin

exchangeforthedullmonotonyofplantationtimberandfleetingmaterialgain,was to grow ever more common. The bright days of autumn would becomesmoke stained and darkened, as immense areas of primeval forest wereincineratedwithnohopeofreturn.Inthisway,thefrontiersoftheEdenofouryouth, visited in silent wonder, retreated each year. Once gloriouswalks now

started ignominiously in the blackened wasteland of a clear-felled coop. Itseemedourexile, thoughresisted,waseventuallytobeassuredatthehandsofthosewhohadlearntnothingfromPedder.By such ways are environmentalists made, and the company of those who

speak in defence of the earth sought out. Throughout the 1970s and ’80s,environmentalthinkerswerebusyarrangingtheelementsofaworldthatwouldtranscendtheextremesofanarroganthumanism.Wildernesswasinasensethebedrock of this project, for while it existed it made meaningful the term“nature.”Inturn,thewildernessexperience—thehumanresponsetowhatareinfact theoriginal conditionsofourexistence—providedachance to fathom thedepthsofourownnature.

FOOTNOTES

1 Max Angus, The World of Olegas Truchanas (Hobart, Tasmania: OlegasTruchanasPublicationCommittee,1975),p.37.2Ina1983paper,Po-KeungIpproposed:“Anyenvironmentalethic...shouldprovideadequateanswers to threequestions: (1)What is thenatureofnature?(2)Whatisman’srelationshiptonature?(3)Howshouldmanrelatehimselftonature?”(Po-KeungIp,“TaoismandtheFoundationsofEnvironmentalEthics,”EnvironmentalEthics5[1983]:p.335).3 See, for example, Hay,Main Currents in Western Environmental Thought,chapter1.4 Significantly, the writings of prominent ecophilosophers such as J. BairdCallicott, Bill Devall, George Sessions, John Seed, andWarwick Fox—whichdefendtheintrinsicvalueandrightsof thenon-humanworld—weredevelopedin regions of the world (America and Australia) still possessed of substantialareasofwildnature.5 George Frankland quoted in Bob Brown, Lake Pedder (Hobart, Tasmania:WildernessSociety,1985),p.14.6JamesCalderquotedinBrown,LakePedder,p.14.7GeorgeInnesquotedinBrown,LakePedder,p.15.8Brown,LakePedder,p.13.9Angus,TheWorldofOlegasTruchanas,p.37.10MaxAngusquotedinBrown,LakePedder,p.16.

11Brown,LakePedder,p.16.12OlegasTruchanasquotedinBrown,LakePedder,p.16.13Angus,TheWorldofOlegasTruchanas,p.37.14LouisShoobridgequotedinBrown,LakePedder,p.19.15Angus,TheWorldofOlegasTruchanas,p.37.16TruchanasquotedinBrown,LakePedder,p.16.17Angus,TheWorldofOlegasTruchanas,p.38.18Angus,TheWorldofOlegasTruchanas,p.51.19Angus,TheWorldofOlegasTruchanas,p.51.20MaryHewittquotedinBrown,LakePedder,p.17.21HarryOldmeadow,“TheFirmamentShewethHisHandiwork,”inSeeingGodEverywhere: Essays on Nature and the Sacred, ed. Barry McDonald(Bloomington:WorldWisdom,2003),pp.34-35.22MelvaTruchanasquotedinBrown,LakePedder,p.17.23PeterDonnellyquotedinBrown,LakePedder,p.17,author’semphasis.24KevinKiernanquotedinBrown,LakePedder,p.18.25BeverlyDunnquotedinBrown,LakePedder,p.17.26EdwardStJohn,QCquotedinBrown,LakePedder,p.17.27CliveSamsonquotedinBrown,LakePedder,p.17.28MaxAngusquotedinBrown,LakePedder,p.16,emphasisadded.29KevinKiernan,“ISawMyTempleRansacked,”inBrown,LakePedder,p.23.30Kiernan,“ISawMyTempleRansacked,”p.19.31EdwardStJohnquotedinBrown,LakePedder,p.13.

CHAPTERTWO

Leopold

In Aldo Leopold’s 1949 book, A Sand County Almanac,1 wilderness is thetouchstone which reveals, through our contact with it, the true nature of ourexperience of beauty. Leopold, like Truchanas, accepted beauty as acharacteristic of nature. His “land ethic,” now famous within green thought,specificallyanddeliberatelyincludesthisquality:

Athingisrightwhenittendstopreservetheintegrity,stability,andbeautyofthebioticcommunity.Itiswrongwhenittendsotherwise.2

Inaworkthatseekstoappraisethevalidityofacontemporaryphilosophybyexposing it to the light of a traditional one, Leopold’s writings, because theycontainelementsofboth,mayactasabridgebetweenthetwo.Asarespectedpioneer of environmental thought, his ideas continue to have standing forecophilosophy.Yet,assomeonewho treats thequalityofbeautyonaparwithmore easily defined qualities, his outlook is also controversial. However, thefollowing study, as well as providing insight into Leopold’s conception ofnaturalbeauty,beginstheprocessofre-establishingbeautyonasurefootingbyshowing theway inwhich the beautiful and its perception can be linked.The“problem”ofbeauty,normallyconceivedintermsofopposingapproaches(theobjective, which asserts that beauty inheres in the object; and the subjective,which finds beauty a matter of personal taste) is seen to be resolvable in amanner quite different from ImmanuelKant’s attempt tomediate between thetwo by claiming the universal validity of aesthetic judgment.3 In this way,Leopold’s work lends credence to, and may engender sympathy for, thetraditionalperspectiveasitisrevealed.In the landethic,we face thequestionwhichLeopoldandanyone similarly

concerned with the relationship they have with nature, must answer: what isintegral,stable,andbeautiful?Uponhisbeloved“sandfarm”inWisconsin(landonce cleared, briefly productive, and thence abandoned) Leopold is aware ofmany beauties,manywonderful relationships between its plants, animals, andbirds.Yethis attitude isoneofmaking thebestoutofwhat is there, forhe isworking towards re-establishing some semblance of what was, all the while

remainingunsureofhowrightlytoproceedwiththis“husbandryofwildplantsandanimals.”4Whenwefindhimengagedinthetaskofremedyingthedamagedone,heconcedes:

theaspen is ingoodreputebecauseheglorifiesOctoberandhe feedsmygrouseinwinter,buttosomeofmyneighborsheisamereweed,perhapsbecausehesproutedsovigorouslyinthestumplotstheirgrandfatherswereattemptingtoclear....Again,thetamarackistomeafavoritesecondonlytowhitepine,perhapsbecauseheisnearlyextinct inmytownship . . .orbecausehe sprinklesgoldonOctobergrouse . . .orbecausehe sours thesoil andenables it togrow the loveliestofourorchids, the showy lady’s-slipper.. . .Ilikethewahoo,partlybecausedeer,rabbits,andmicearesoavid to eat his square twigs and green bark and partly because his ceriseberriesglowsowarmlyagainstNovembersnow.5

Leopold is trying to put back what has been lost through degradation. Headmits tobeingunsureofwhatexactly to include in theonepatchof land forwhich he can be personally responsible, partly because he has no way ofknowingwith suretywhatwas once there, and sowhat “should” be there.Heknows,though,thattoacertainextentnaturewilltakeitsowncourse,sohecanstrivetohelpit initsmeanderingandcircuitousroutebackthroughsuccessiontowardsastable, integral,andbeautifulstate.Oneof thepre-requisites,surely,for such aproject is asdeep aknowledgeof the land as is possible, basedondetailedobservationofwhatistherealreadyandhowtheseseveralpartsinteract:anecologicalunderstanding.Theperceptionofbeautyisaguideheretoo,foritregisters absence and inclusion. Significantly for Leopold, the index for bothnaturethatiswhole,andfornaturalbeauty,iswilderness.It is in the encounter and engagementwithwilderness thatLeopold’smind,

feelingsandsenseofpoetrysoar.WithinthewildsoftheColoradoDelta,thereonceexistedthegloriesofaworldasyetunspoilt.In1922,asyouths,Leopoldandhisbrotherwentcanoeingthere,andinweeksoftraveldidnotsee“amanoracow,anaxe-cutorafence.”6

When the sun peeped over the SierraMadre, it slanted across a hundredmilesoflovelydesolation,avastflatbowlofwildernessrimmedbyjaggedpeaks.OnthemaptheDeltawasbisectedbytheriver,butinfacttheriverwasnowhereandeverywhere,forhecouldnotdecidewhichofahundred

greenlagoonsofferedthemostpleasantandleastspeedypathtotheGulf.Sohetraveledthemall,andsodidwe.Hedividedandrejoined,hetwistedandturned,hemeanderedinawesomejungles,heallbutranincircles,hedalliedwithlovelygroves,hegotlostandwasgladofit,andsowerewe.Forthelastwordinprocrastination,gotravelwithariverreluctanttolosehisfreedominthesea.7

Thedeltaisteemingwithwildlifeandanabundanceoffoodforall,andalthough

Wecouldnot,orat leastdidnot,eatwhat thequailanddeerdid. . . .Weshared their evident delight in this milk-and-honey wilderness. Theirfestivalmood becameourmood;we all reveled in a common abundanceandineachother’swell-being.Icannotrecallfeeling,insettledcountry,alikesensitivitytothemoodoftheland.8

But “all this was far away and long ago.”9 Once again, we encounter anunspeakable sadness in the face of the inevitable onslaught of developmentwhich has rung down the curtain on all this. After acknowledging the delta’sdeath, from Leopold we have first the wry comment, “I am told the greenlagoonsnowraisecantaloupes.Ifso,theyshouldnotlackflavor.”10Andthen,in resignation to the tragic element that seems always to end the drama ofhumanityonthestageofnature:

Manalwayskillsthethingheloves,andsowethepioneershavekilledourwilderness.Somesaywehadto.Bethatasitmay,IamgladIshallneverbe young without wild country to be young in. Of what avail are fortyfreedomswithoutablankspotonthemap?11

Leopold,likesomanyenvironmentalists,ispreparedtoclaimforwildnatureaqualitythatisdistinctandunique.Andforhimitisthepresenceofthisqualitythatcorrespondsto—andmayresultin—theperceptionwecallbeauty.Althoughit may be tempting to deny the objective reality of the quality behind theperception,andsayitisathingthatislenttonaturebyus,Leopoldclearlydidnotbelieve this.Forhim, theperceptionofbeautyoccursas a response to theexistence of beauty,or somethingwemay call beauty, in theworld.When heincludes beauty as an element whose presence in the world contributes to its

“rightness,”itisevidentheisnotusingwordscasuallyorinaccurately.Hence,itwouldbeamistaketoimaginehewould,iffacedwiththemorerecentlanguageof environmental ethics—which is now too cautious to include such terms—readily abandon “beauty” in favour of a more “scientific,” less “subjective”word.TofamiliarizeourselveswithLeopold’sparticularvisionofnature,wemight

looktotheopeningwordsof“SketchesHereandThere”:

Adawnwindstirsonthegreatmarsh.Withalmostimperceptibleslownessit rolls a bank of fog across the widemorass. Like the white ghost of aglacierthemistsadvance,ridingoverphalanxesoftamarack,slidingacrossbog-meadows heavy with dew. A single silence hangs from horizon tohorizon....Atlastaglintofsunrevealstheapproachofagreatechelonofbirds.Onmotionlesswingtheyemergefromtheliftingmists,sweepafinalarc of sky, and settle in clangorous descending spirals to their feedinggrounds.Anewdayhasbegunonthecranemarsh.12

What immediately followsalertsus tohiswayof seeingand isanexampleofLeopoldathismostprofound:

Ourabilitytoperceivequalityinnaturebegins,asinart,withthepretty.Itexpands through successive stages of the beautiful to values as yetuncapturedby language.Thequalityofcranes lies, I think, in thishighergamut,asyetbeyondthereachofwords.13

Thereissomuchinthisdeceptivelysimplestatementthatithastobelookedat carefully. Here we find the terms “quality” and “beauty” inextricablyassociated.Thereisaqualitywhichresidesinnatureandwhichisperceivable,and that quality may come to be known or successively uncovered. Theinferencehereisthatthequalityspokenofmaynotbeknowntoeveryone,oratleast to the same depth, yet it exists independently ofwhether any individualendorsesordenies thatexistence.Ourability toperceivevariesandfollowsanopen-ended,gradedseries.Theperceptionofthisqualitybeginswiththefeelingofthe“pretty”andthen,asmoreisseenorperceived,beautyofmoreandmoredepth is realized. The sense of the sublime surely enters here. And then, asLeopoldrecognizes,languagefailstoexpresstheheightsofperceptionthatarepossibleintheconfrontationwiththeessenceofnature.Nevertheless, it isstill

“beauty”whichmostnearlyanswerstoourquestion:“Whatisitthatisthere?”Leopoldrecognizesthatbeautyexistsinallofnature,includinghuman-altered

landscapes,orhecouldnotdelightsomuchinhisownfarm.Yethevaluesmostwhat nature would like to “see” there, which is why he would rather followwhereshe leads thancreateexclusivelywhathewants.To the ecologist’s eye,there is a special beauty inwhat nature brings aboutwhen free fromour owndesigns.When this process is thwartedby the removal of flora and fauna, thedegradationof soils, or the introductionof foreign species, there is the feelingthat beauty, as well as integrity and stability, has been lost. Leopold’sacknowledgementofthespecial typeofbeautyfoundinnaturethat isfreeanddoes not bear the obvious imprint of humanity, is confirmed by the fact thatwheneverhehassomethingtosayaboutnaturalbeautyitisnottothemeadoworthecropland,butalwaystothewildelementthatherefers:

ThephysicsofbeautyisonedepartmentofnaturalsciencestillintheDarkAges. Not even the manipulators of bent space have tried to solve itsequations.Everybodyknows,forexample,thattheautumnlandscapeinthenorthwoodsistheland,plusaredmaple,plusaruffedgrouse.Intermsofconventional physics, the grouse represents only amillionth of either themassortheenergyofanacre.Yetsubtractthegrouseandthewholethingisdead.Anenormousamountofsomekindofmotivepowerhasbeenlost.14

Ifthisstatementistobetakenseriouslythenitimpliesseveralthings.Firstly,that nature is inherently beautiful: that is, it does not depend on our say so.Secondly,thatitsbeautyresidesinthewaythatitactuallyis;itisnotsubjecttoourparticularwhims(forexample,whetherwelikegrouseornot).Thirdly,thatitsbeauty to someextent resides in its freeness fromhuman interference.Andfourthly, that certain parts of nature are investedwithmore significant qualitythanothers.“Itiseasy,”Leopoldcontinues,“tosaythatthelossisallinourmind’seye,

but is thereanysoberecologistwhowill agree?Heknows fullwell that therehasbeenanecologicaldeath,thesignificanceofwhichisin-expressibleintermsof contemporary science.”15 It is here thatwe get to the crux of the issue ofbeautyand itsperception.Thequality that resideswithinnatureasawhole,orwithin an individual species, and that provokes, gives rise to, or causes theperceptionofbeauty,isaninneressence,notasurfacething.Itisveryreal,butliesbehind,orwithin,form:

A philosopher has called this imponderable essence the noumenon ofmaterial things. It stands in contradistinction to phenomenon, which isponderable and predictable, even to the tossings and turnings of theremoteststar.16

Leopoldinfersthattheessenceornoumenonisperceivableorknowable.And,unhesitatingly,heproclaimsthat“thegrouseisthenumenonofthenorthwoods,thebluejayofthehickorygroves,thewhisky-jackofthemuskegs,thepiñoneroof the juniper foothills.”17 For thosewhowould like to have Leopold fit theposition currently held by ecophilosophy, it is always tempting to dismiss thisaspectofhisthoughtasacuriosityunworthyofseriousconsideration;toexcusethis talk of “noumenon” as casual writing, appealing more to the poeticsensibility than the philosophic or ecological. Such thinkers, having beenpersuaded by the modernist outlook, are wont to agree with Kant that thenoumenonisunknowablesinceitwouldhavetobetheobjectofnon-sensuousintuition, and only sensuous intuitions exist; to talk about it, therefore, ispointless.However, forLeopold, the“soberecologist” isnotonewhobelievesthe truenatureof things tobe somehowcommensuratewith theirphenomenalappearance, but one mindful of an essential nature (to which any particularspeciesmaygiverelativelylessormoreadequateexpression).Furthermore,heis not onewhobelieves all knowledge to be basedon sensory perception, butacknowledges a perception that corresponds to this essence. To recognize thebiasofmodernistthoughtinregardtoperceptionistobemoreopentofollowingwhereLeopoldleads.IthasbeensaidthatLeopoldacceptedthattherewasmoreintrinsicqualityin

wildnaturethaninmanagednature.Now,itistruethatmuchofLeopold’searlylifewasspent interactingwith theenvironment inawaythat, today,wewouldquestionasbeingatoddswiththerespectandcarewhichheurges.Yetifitbethought that some of the experience of quality pertains to the “hunting andfishing”sideofthings,Leopoldisthefirsttoassureusthatthisisnotthecase.Itis evident from hiswritings that hemade the transition of thought thatmanymakeastheygrowinappreciationfornature:anincreasingreluctancetodestroy,sincedestructionoften leads to impoverishmentofwildnature.Hisoft-quotedpiece“ThinkingLikeaMountain”—inwhichhecomestoseetheterribleerrorof theUSForestry’swolferadicationprogramme—is testimonytoametanoia,orprofoundchangeofthought,inthisregard.18ForLeopold,theexperienceof

qualitydoesnotdependonavigorous interactionwith theenvironment,orontheperceivingsenses.Itdependsintheendonperceptionitself,because“likeallrealtreasuresofthemind,perceptioncanbesplitintoinfinitelysmallfractionswithoutlosingitsquality.”19What isLeopolddoinghere?He ismakinga subtlecorrelationbetween the

perceptionandtheperceived.Whenhesays,“perceptioncanbesplit,”hemeansthat towhatever part of naturewe direct our attention,we can find quality orbeautythere.Andifwearepossessedoftheheightenedperceptiontowhichhehasalluded,wewillfindacorrespondinglevelofbeautytheretoo.Buthealsomeans that that which is perceived can be split into small fractions withoutlosing any of the quality.Natural beauty has almost a holographic nature: thesame quality that is found in the whole is found in each part of nature; inLeopold’s language,beautyandqualitycanbefoundat“home.”20Experiencereadilyconfirmsthis.Itispossibletobeasprofoundlymovedbythebeautyofasingleflowerasbyavastlandscape.Thischaracteristicof“infinite”divisibilityrecallsthepointmadeearlierabouttheseeminglyinfinitecomplexityorrichnessofnature.To value perception—especially the deeper levels of perception— and to

perceivebeautywhereveronegoes,is,forLeopold,toviewtheideaof“trophy”recreationasbothunnecessaryandpossiblyatoddswiththisperception:“Asasearchforperception,therecreationalstampedeisfootlessandunnecessary.”21Indeed, the interesting thing to note here is that if the subtlest end of thespectrum of perception is engaged—that is, if the perception of beauty hasbecomerarefied—itbecomesitsownreward,warrantinglessandlessinterestina physical interaction with nature, because more and more may be “taken”throughapassiveor contemplative interaction. “Theoutstandingcharacteristicofperception,”writesLeopold,“isthatitentailsnoconsumptionandnodilutionofanyresource.”22Moreover,anengagementwithmaterialityactuallyhinderstheperception.Leopoldrecognizesthiswhenhereferstotheoveruseofvariouscontrivancesthatpurporttomakeourenjoymentofnaturegreater.23However,the experienceofwildnature, free from the trappingsof civilization, doesnotautomatically entail the type of perception to which Leopold is referring. Inearlier times,while freeof just these encumbrances, the spiritwhichanimatedDaniel Boone’s engagement with nature (Boone spoke of the “horror” of thewilderness)wasnolessdistantfromwhatLeopoldistalkingabout:

Recreation . . . isnot theoutdoors,butour reaction to it.DanielBoone’sreactiondependednotonlyonthequalityofwhathesaw,butonthequalityofthementaleyewithwhichhesawit.24

OnceagaininLeopoldwehaveagreatdealcontainedwithinabriefstatement.Hereisareiterationoftheideathatthequality—theessence—isthereinreality;it isnot subjective.Butnow, combined, is theunderstanding, stated explicitly,thatitsperceptiondoesdependverymuchontheparticularqualityormodeofconsciousnessbroughttobearbytheindividualwhenseeing.Infact,itisvital.Perceptivityisonesideofanequation,whiletheperceivedistheother.AndlestitbemistakenlyconcludedthatLeopold’s“mentaleye”refers toaknowledge-basedmodeofthought—suchasafamiliaritywiththeprinciplesofecology—hedismissesthisforthwith:

Letnoman jump to theconclusion that [aperson]must takehisPh.D. inecology before he can ‘see’ his country. On the contrary, the Ph.D.maybecomeascallousasanundertakertothemysteriesatwhichheofficiates... . Perception . . . cannot be purchased with either learned degrees ordollars;itgrowsathomeaswellasabroad,andhewhohasalittlemayuseittoasgoodadvantageashewhohasmuch.25

Here, towards the end of A Sand County Almanac, Leopold concludeseffectively that the perception of quality or beauty not only is not related tomentalknowledge,buteventhatsuchknowledgeorthinkingmaybeahindrancetoitsperception.Thesignificanceoftheearlierquotedstatement,“Asasearchfor perception, the recreational stampede is footless and unnecessary,” canhardlybeoverstated.Whyatthispoint,then,doesLeopoldseemtoabandonhistrain of thought and the conclusions reached, and turn once again to a moreactive approach to wilderness? He has already recognized the underlyingparadox of wilderness: we end up destroying it, nomatter how long it takes,simply by acknowledging it and then making provision for its enjoyment.Moreover, he has already concluded that “all conservationofwildness is self-defeating, for to cherishwemust see and fondle, andwhen enoughhave seenandfondled,thereisnowildernesslefttocherish.”26Andyethegoeson,intheremainingsectionsofthebook,todealwithamuchmore“hands-on”approach.Perhapshefelt theratherausterenon-utilitarianoutlookwastoomuchtohopefor,orheshiedfromthedoublestandardsofthosewhofirstenjoyaplace,then

proclaim it “off limits.” Whatever the reason, his conclusion regardingwilderness is a significant realization, and one that continues to confrontenvironmentalism at the deepest level. For many environmentalists there is adeep-seated need to experience wild places. Often the thing experiencedbecomesthethingfoughtfor,whichinturnbecomestherewardforthefight.Ifthereisafundamentalinconsistencyinthetreasuringofwildnature,becauseofwhere it leads, it is not something that many care to dwell on. The logicalrequirement of having nothing to do with that which one reveres seems acurious,evenimpossible,outcome.Ifthisconflictseemsirresolvableonthelevelofdiscursivethought,thereisa

wayoutoftheseemingimpassewhenwefollowthepromptingsofLeopoldasregards beauty. For Leopold, beauty is not of the same order as “stability” or“integrity” (which may perhaps be measured empirically) and this is why itseems as though it does not belong in a coherent environmental ethics,whichdealswithoutwardform.Beautyevadesmeasurementbecause,ultimately,thereisnothingaboutitthatcanbemeasured.Wheneverpeopleagreeuponaconceptlikestabilityitisbecauseitcanbemadetoconformtomeasurablestandardsthatarethenviewedasindependentofpersonalbelief.Whenitcomestobeauty,itisfound thatnoteveryoneagreesonwhat isbeing talkedabout,and this lackofagreementbecomesgoodcauseforbelievingbeautytoresidenot“outthere”butintheconsciousnessofindividuals.Yetlogically,asLeopoldknew,thisfailuretoaccountforbeautypointsnotsomuchtoitsunreality,astothevariabilityofitsperception. If it is amore subtle aspect of nature,which resides behind, orwithin, outward form, then agreement over its reality would require that acorrespondingly more subtle perceptive capacity become more common. ThekeytoLeopold’svisionofbeautyis indeedperceptiveconsciousness, theformof consciousness brought to bear being paramount in our relationship to thenaturalworld.Inthisinsightliesgreatirony,fortheverydisciplineofthought—ecophilosophy—which has sought to adopt Leopold but finds difficulty inincorporating his ideas on beauty, is itself influenced by a mode ofconsciousness that works to counteract the emergence of the sort of visionLeopoldexpresses.

FOOTNOTES

1AldoLeopold,ASandCountyAlmanac:andSketchesHereandThere (NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1989).

2Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,pp.224-5.3 See Immanuel Kant, “Analytic of the Beautiful,” in Critique of Judgment(1790).4Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.158.5Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,pp.71-2.6Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.141.7Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,pp.141-2.8Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.146,emphasisadded.9Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.148.10Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.148.11Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,pp.148-9.12Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.95.13Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.96,emphasisadded.14Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.137.15Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.138.16Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.138.17Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.138.18SeeLeopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.129.19Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.174,emphasisadded.20Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.174.21Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.174.22Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.173.23Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,pp.177-187.24Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,pp.173-4,emphasisadded.25Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.174.26Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.101.

PartTwo

ECOPHILOSOPHY

CHAPTERTHREE

TheDistinctivenessofEcophilosophy

Withinthelifetimeoftoday’schildren,theecosphere—thefragile,gossamer-thinmantleofflourishinglifeandmatterthatcoversthefaceoftheearth—mayhavebecomedysfunctionalandnolongerabletosupporthumanlife.1Ifthishappens,it could be said that ecophilosophy will have been the last great Westernphilosophical response toanunderstandingof thehumanpositionvisàvis theworld.For,inrespondingtothetragiccollisionbetweenourownendeavoursandthelimitationsoftheearthtobemanipulated—whichstartedtobecomeapparentduring the twentieth century—ecophilosophy began tomarshal all the thoughtand practical wisdom of past centuries and direct them towards one lastenterprise:thepreservationofthelifeoftheworld.Ecophilosophy’sraisond’êtremightbedefinedbyjustthisgoal.Itmayalso

be said that the goal—this particular commitment to nature—has shapedecophilosophy. For countless generations the task ecophilosophy has set itselfwouldhavebeenunnecessary; theseemingly inexhaustiblenatureof theworldwe inhabited, its “self-sustaining” nature, and our relatively small population,meant our impact remained negligible and our ignorance of long-termconsequences forgivable. “All the world’s a stage,” wrote Shakespeare, whomightwellhavespokenforthegenerationsofhumanityabsorbedinactingoutthehumandramaagainsta“stage-set”thatremainedlargelythesame.Attimes,life was lived in a way we might term “sustainable.” At other times, thebackdropwasmodifiedsomewhat:fieldsreplacedforests,andtownsandcitiesthe open spaces. If we caused degradation in one area, new frontiers wereaccessibletous.Wecanno longerexpect sucha freedom.Nor,withourpresentknowledge,

can we claim a freedom from responsibility. Human activity now encroachesuponcomplexweathersystemsthatinvolvethemovementofvastairmassesandoceancurrents.LikeBillMcKibben,wearerighttonowdoubtwhetheritisjust“nature”thathasbroughttheintensityofasummer’sheat,theviolentwindsofautumn,floodsinwinter,oradroughtinspring.2Consequently,wearerighttoviewthestarkandblackenedlandscapeofaclear-felledforest,orcleanairandfreshwaterpoisonedbychemicals,assignsofafollywithoutbounds.For,itistowitnessthestageitself—thelifeoftheworld—sweptclean.

In such unprecedented times, we may sympathize with the sentiment ofenvironmentalphilosopherJ.BairdCallicott:

Theproblemswhichtakentogetherconstitutethesocalled‘environmentalcrisis’ appear to be of such ubiquity, magnitude, recalcitrance, andsynergistic complexity, that they forceonphilosophy the tasknotonlyofapplying familiar ethical theories, long in place, but of completelyreconstructing moral theory (and a supporting metaphysics) in orderadequatelyandeffectivelytodealwiththem.3

The inference here is that we have the problemswe do in spite of— evenbecause of—the metaphysical systems of the past, and therefore they are notadequatetothetaskathand.Yet,althoughhistoricalexamplesof“unecological”behaviour can be found in all cultures (whether of primal peoples or moredevelopedcivilizations4),destructionthatisatoncelarge-scale,isnotdoneinignoranceoftheconsequencesbutoftenwithfullknowledgeofthem,andlacksanyrestrainingwisdom,isaphenomenononlyofrecentcenturies.5Itwouldbeamistake,then,ifwedidnotadequatelyscrutinizetheworldviewofthemodernWest,orifwetooquicklydismissedanoldertradition.The question of appropriate behaviour both in the world and towards the

world—or ethics—is a timeless one, and has always been influenced by theparticular image we have of ourselves and of the world. That image hastraditionallybeensuppliedbyreligion;andareligiousethics,restrictinghumanbehaviour through the use of sanction, or modifying it by urging “moral”behaviour,merely reflectsand ismade relevantby theexistenceofunderlyingmetaphysical principles. Inevitably, if the metaphysics is weakened, so too isallegiance to the corresponding ethics,whichmay come to appear stultifying.Nevertheless, the attempt to develop a secular ethics based on reason andempiricism—a project of the last few hundred years—is both dubious andproblematic.On theonehand,asNasrpointsout, thenormsbywhich secularethicsareconsideredethicaltendtoremainthose“whichreligioninstilledintheminds of people in theWest.”6 Alternatively, pushing the limits of a secularrationalapproach,assometheoristsseekingtodevelopanenvironmentalethicshave done, can yield a world in which even the stipulation against killing oreatingeachother(asotheranimalsdo),becomesnearlyimpossibletodefendonrationalgrounds.7Suchoutcomessuggestgraveproblemsoncetheprinciplesof

religionaresetaside.Afaith in theutilityof reason insuchmattersmaybe traced toaconfusion

overthesupposed“non-religious”heritageoftheGreekworld.Weknowthatinthe Politeia (“Republic”) Socrates looked for the foundations of appropriatebehaviour in philosophy—the love or pursuit of wisdom (sophia). A humanbeing, directed by a particular internal conscious state, would, he thought, bepredisposed to approach theworld justly.Yet themetaphysical principles thatdetermine such a state arenotdifferent from thosewhich inform religion, andare just as certainly notbased on reason. The overly rational interpretation ofclassical philosophy has tended to obscure or deny the importance whichphilosopherslikePlatoandAristotleattachedtoanon-rationalknowing.Indeed,asAlgisUždavinysobserves,

Modern Western philosophy . . . has been systematically reduced to aphilosophical discourse of a single dogmatic kind, through the fatal one-sidedness of its professed secular humanistic mentality, and a crucialmisunderstanding of traditional wisdom. The task of the ancientphilosopherswasinfacttocontemplatethecosmicorderanditsbeauty;tolive inharmonywith itand to transcend the limitations imposedbysenseexperienceanddiscursivereasoning.8

Ecophilosophy, because it may be conceived as not only a system ofenvironmentalrightsandhumandutiesbutalsoashaperofaparticularbentofmindorstateofconsciousnessinfluencingthebehaviourofanindividual,morefaithfully reflects the initial determination ofWestern philosophy.9 The greatmeritofecophilosophyisthatitsreachextendsbeyondconventionalboundaries—historical,geographicalandepistemological.Itisasthoughhumanity,despitetheactionsof imprudentyouth,mightbe the inheritorofawisdombornofanencounterwith theknowledgeofall the faiths, ideologies,andphilosophiesofthe past few thousand years. It is to this extraordinary resource base thatecophilosophyhas turned inaneffort todeterminebothwherewewentwrongandwhatmightstillbedone,eveninthe“eleventhhour.”Ecophilosophymaybecreditedwith a relevance greater thanmainstream philosophy by virtue of itssubjectmatter, broad-ranging nature, and avowedly practical disposition.10 Inthis,itisbestplacedtorepresenttheaspirationsoftheage;toanswertheurgentneed for a change in thought that might halt the ongoing and appalling

destructionofthenaturalworld.AlinefromCallicottwrittenovertwodecadesagostillexpresseswellthisstriving:

WemaynothopetomarryTruthtoReality,[but]wemayhopetofindanintellectual construct that comprehends and systematizes more of ourexperienceanddoessomorecoherentlythananyother.11

Yet, while the sincerity and idealism of this outlookmay still motivate theecophilosophyoftoday,itdoesnotcreatethereality.Forif,despiteouraccesstothewisdomoftheages,weremainimpressedbyoneparticularandanomalousviewpoint—that of modern science—which stands not just in contrast with atraditional perspective but resists accommodating that tradition, canwe reallyclaimtobeopentoall thatcanbeexperienced?FreyaMathewshasexpressedthisallegiancewell:“ifanewworldviewistoattainlegitimacyandtakerootinthis [Western] culture, it must ultimately have the sanction of science”; andagain: “the scope of science, and the values and attitudes to Nature that itpresently embodies,may need to be transformed, but science in some form isnevertheless our ‘reason to believe.’”12 When armed with this view, andconcerned to defend at least some of theworld described bymodern science,“abstractions”notthoughttoreflecthumannatureorthenatureofnaturetendtobe discarded. Hence, although most of the world’s religions, ideologies, orworldviews, past and present, have been assessed for their merits as suitablesystemsto informour interactionwith theenvironment,ecophilosophyhasnotshiedfromdismissingsuchphilosophiesiftheyseeminadequate.13And,asweshall see, such inadequacy usually rests on the verdict ofmodern science, or,morecorrectly,theverdictofthemodeofconsciousnessthatscienceexpresses.Thus, theseeminglyinterminabledebatesbetweenthosewhodefendandthosewhoopposetherelevanceofreligionormodernscience,whichHayreviewsinMain Currents in EnvironmentalThought,14 invariably arise as a result of aconfounding of the role of consciousness in the matter. Even to profess adichotomy of “science supporters” and “science detractors” is misleading,preciselybecause thesameenvironmentalistswhoareantagonistic towards thepractical outcomes ofmodern science, feel obliged to agreewithmany of itspronouncements regardingontology and epistemology, because thesearewhatdefinetheirecologicaloutlookinthefirstplace.Whenever religion is dismissed outright it is usually because the world it

describesisthoughtsomehowfanciful,andtheworldmodernsciencedescribesmoretrue.15Thenaivetyofthisresponseisshowninthefailuretoseethatthevery practice of science might have resulted in a particular perception of theworld:one,precisely,thatexcludesanotherway.There are those who to some extent appreciate or are more attuned to the

realityreligionpoints to,butconsider thatscienceshould(ormust) informourunderstanding of it. Thus, Charles Birch and John Cobb inThe Liberation ofLife16 draw upon the process theory of Alfred North White-head (itself anattempttocometogripswiththeprofoundre-conceptionswroughtbytwentiethcentury science) to establish a view of Christianity that is not tied to anyparticulardoctrine,butmightchangeitsbeliefsinanevolutionaryway.And,inToward a Transpersonal Ecology, Warwick Fox is convinced enough by thecosmology of modern science to suggest a form of identification with naturebasedonthiscosmology.17Here,althoughthereisarecognitionoftherebeingmore of value in the world than science studies, there seems little or norecognition that scientific consciousness itself may have acted to obscure thetruedepthsof that reality;orobscured theexistenceofanalternativemodeofconsciousnessadequate to that realityandalreadypresent“within”religion;orworse, thwarted the expression of this alternative mode of consciousness.Wheneverthemodeofconsciousnessisnotfullytakenintoaccountwefindtheconclusions made are reasonable, but—precisely because of this oversight—fundamentally invalid. Thus, Hay finds Western religion in general eitherantagonistic to environmentalism (in the case of fundamentalism), orunsympathetictowardsit(becauseBiblicalinjunctionsorphraseslike“subdue,”“havedominionover,”or “the fearofyouand thedreadofyou shallbeuponevery beast of the earth . . . into your hand they are delivered”18 suggest thesubservienceofnature).And,inregardtotheEasternreligions,hebelieves

Itisdifficulttoavoidtheconclusionthat,whenitcomestodeterminingthepublic and private choice of ecologically relevant behaviour, the non-directive nature of eastern religious traditions renders them unsuited toserveasdeterminantsof,orevenmoderatorsuponaction.19

Suchconclusionsmightbewarrantedbyanoverviewof theoperationtodayof the exoteric, or outward, dimension of religion. One can easily tire of themany attempts to portray a particular religion as “environmental” by either

denying the influence injunctions like those abovemight have, or referring todoctrine and precepts that clearly are not followed by the majority of itsadherents. One can also bewail the fact that there are not enough religiousproscriptions,orthattheyarenotoftherightkind.Yettoasknothowareligioncanbeinterpreted,buthowitmayhaveoriginallybeeninterpreted,istocreateanopeningintoanesotericworldwherethetruedimensionsofreligion(andsothetruedimensionsofbeauty)aretobefound.Itistoconfronttherealityofanalternativemodeofconsciousnessmorethanadequatetothegoalecophilosophyseeks. It is also to discover a fateful interaction between religion andmodernscience, which suggests that they are, as Francis Bacon once claimed,implacablyopposed.An allegiance to scientific knowledgemeans a hesitancy over taking a first

stepintothatworld.Atthebeginningofthetwenty-firstcentury,ecophilosophycan be positioned at a juncture. To one side lies the familiar structure ofmodernist thought whose chief support—modern science— provides acomparatively arid appraisal of the world and of humanity’s potentialconsciousness, and whose inventiveness continues to contribute toenvironmental devastation in both the human and natural world. To the othersidelieswhatatfirstmightbethoughtamorenebulousreality,positionedasitisintheglareofthisscience.Thisstructure,ornateandmany-levelled,representstheinheritanceofthepre-scientificworldview.Anattractionforitisevokedbyadeeplyfeltallegiancetoaworldofsubtletiesalientoscience,toanimmaterialrealmthatart,poetry,philosophy,andreligiononceaddressed.Thelanguageofthis realm is foreign to science too, andbears testimony toanontologywhichscienceisunabletoconfront:“Beauty,”“Truth,”and“Goodness”(Plato’sthreeverities),the“Spirit,”andthe“Divine.”Ifwecansaythatamotivatingfactorintheenvironmentmovementisasensitivitytothebeautyofthenaturalworld,andan aversion to its destruction (a finding of the previous chapters), we haveidentifiedwhat is a common element in both environmentalism and thismoretraditional, non-scientific, understanding. In virtue of this correspondence,beautyandtheperceptionofbeautyrepresentadynamiccapableofeffectingasubstantial shift in the perspective of ecophilosophy. To follow where beautyleads is eventually to discover beauty’s rightful dwelling place, a world oftimelessrelevancefarremovedfromtheonepresentlyconsideredsoreal.

ENVIRONMENTALETHICSANDECOCENTRISM

Viewedwithhindsighttheecophilosophymovement20seemstodemonstrateaninevitabledirectionandmomentum.Giventheinitialpremisethatthewholeofthe world’s welfare was to be taken into consideration, and given the“discoveries”ofscience,theeventualpositingofanecocentricpositioncouldbeseenasalogicaloutcome.Varioushistoricalstreamshadbeenflowingtowardswhatwouldbecometheenvironmentmovementfordecades.Indeed,onemightevenlookback to the“worship”ofnature itself—aphenomenonarising in thelatter part of the eighteenth century—and to the attempt, in the followingcentury,topreserveinnationalparkssomeareasofwildnature.Thescienceofecology, in the twentieth century, slowly awakened an appreciation of thecomplex and subtle interconnectedness and interdependence of all life onearth.21Inthesecondhalfofthatcentury,therewasafocusonthedespoliationand pollution of “our” environment—something largely due to the use anddiscarding of the products of industry. This anthropocentric and instrumentaloutlook,which sought topromoteanenvironmental awarenessby reference totheneedsorwantsofpeople,22wasabruptlychallengedin the1970swith theadvent of a clearly argued moral extensionism, which expanded the field ofethical concern to includeother sentient species.23This served the struggle topreserve certain endangered species such as the cetaceans, and promoted aconcernforanimalrightsgenerally.However,thisformofethicalconsiderationcouldnotadequatelycaterfortheprotectionorpreservationofthosespeciesoraspectsoftheworldnotsubjecttopainorfeelings,suchastrees,mountains,orrivers.Thusitwasrecognisedthatalllife,andfinally“nonliving”elementsofthe earth—streams, mountains, the air, even the ecosphere in its entirety—neededtobeincluded.24The issue of ethical sentientism exposed the essential “problem” with any

hierarchicalsystem.Withinsuchastructuretherewas,theoretically,alwaysthechance that the “rights” of the more “important” members of the bioticcommunitywouldoverride therightsof thoseconsideredlesssignificant,eventhough the latter might be critically imperilled, and be critical, too, to thestabilityof thewhole.Thus, inorder tobringall lifewithintheambitofafairethical systemandovercomesuchproblems, itwasbelievednecessary to treatall life, including humans, as somehowon an ethical par. This stipulation cantaketheformofanextensionofmoralconsiderationbyus,25or,moresubtly,anattemptbyusto“see”intrinsicvalueinnature.

Intrinsic value theory tries to escape the conventional ethical boundariesaltogether. Instead of nature being contained within our value system, andtherefore subject to our determinations, we are asked to see ourselves (alongwithourvery species-specific interests)aspositionedwithin thegreaterwholethatisnature.However,thisnature-centredphilosophyorecocentrism—which,accordingtoFox,“strives tobenonanthropocentricbyviewinghumansas justone constituency among others in the biotic community, just one particularstrand in the web of life, just one kind of knot in the biospherical net”26—remains unacceptable to most people on the planet, even to manyenvironmentalists.And this situation is unlikely to change, not just because itfails toanswer topressing social inequalitiesor tackleadevastatingeconomicparadigmandsoon,butbecauseitlargelyignorestheoverwhelmingrelevanceof the traditional religious view as a determinant of an ethical outlook.27Fidelitytothisviewrestsnot—asanecocentristmightsuppose—onthedesiretopreservehumaninterestsagainstthoseofthenon-humanworld,butonthewishtopreservethehumanbeingperse.When,inthe1980s,thesocialecologistMurrayBookchinfirstwadedintothe

debateover the anthropocentric-ecocentricdivide,hewasextremelycriticalofthe legitimacy of the ecocentric position. In his attack on deep ecology, hevoicedthecommonsenseofoutragethatisfeltuponwitnessingwhatseemsanassaultonhumannature:

Nothingcouldseemmorewholesome,moreinnocentofguile,thanthis‘weare all one’ bumper sticker slogan. [But] . . . this all encompassingdefinition of ‘community’ erases all the rich and meaningful distinctionsthat exist between animal and plant communities, and above all betweennon-humanandhumancommunities. . . . [Ecocentrism]essentiallydeniesor degrades the uniqueness of human beings, human subjectivity,rationality, esthetic sensibility, and the ethical potentiality of thisextraordinaryspecies.28

Bookchin’s juxtaposingof thehumanist’s celebrationofhuman attributeswithdeepecology’s“cosmicnightwhichlacksdifferentiation,”29mayremindusofthenihilisminShakespeare:

What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in

faculty!informandmovinghowexpressandadmirable!inactionhowlikean angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! theparagonofanimals!Andyet,tome,whatisthisquintessenceofdust?mandelightsnotme.30

Inecocentrism,forthesakeoftheenvironment,thereisanabandonmentoftheviewthatpeoplearethechiefplayersupontheworld’sstage,andtherestmerebackdrop. The players now are asked not to “hog” the stage, or give suchimpassionedspeechesabouttheirowntroubles,buttodisperseabit,andlooktowhattheyhaveignored.Thescriptnowincludesother,non-human,voices.Theplayhasbeenrecasttofavournoneasprotagonist.31WhileBookchin,ashumanistandadvocateofscience,cannotbecreditedwith

defending the full range of human traits to which a traditional religious viewattests, his argument remains insightful, and it highlights one consequence ofattempting to adopt an ecocentric approach.At the deepest level, ecocentrismcontradicts thenatureofwhatweexperience,bothwithinourselvesand in theworldaroundus.Embracingecocentrismmeansnot just a relinquishmentof atraditionalviewofhumanityandnature,buttheadoptionofaviewimposedbyaparticularreadingoftheinsightsofmodernscience.When Hamlet dismisses everything that man is or might be, he chooses

insteadtoreflectononeaspect:hisearthlynature.Seenasonlyamaterialentity,itistruethat“man”indeedcomesfromtheearthandreturnstoit.Inthesameway,mutatismutandis,forthephilosophyofecocentrismtowork,itmustfocuson outer form or materiality, the one thing all living and non-living entitiespossess. Itmust set toone side theclear evidence for averticaldimension—ahierarchy displayed in the increasing complexity of life and consciousness inlife-forms, and an inner, mostly human, hierarchy of consciousness (self-awareness, imagination, reason, and, most significantly in the context of thereligiousstance,theintuitiveIntellect)—infavourofwhatamountstoaflattwodimensionalviewoftheworld.Theoriginofasystemofthoughtthatbelievesitpossibletodispensewiththe

traditionalviewofhierarchyisnothardtofind.Foxbetraysitthus:

wherewehavebeenabletocheckouranthropocentricassumptionsagainstreality,we have discovered again and again that these views—views thathave been of the first importance in determining our thinking about ourplaceinthelargerschemeofthings—havebeenempiricallyincorrectand,

hence, disastrous for the development of our theoretical understanding ofthe world. We do not live at the centre of the universe and we are notbiologically unrelated to other creatures. . . . We are not evenpsychologically, socially, or culturally different in kind from all otheranimalsand...wearenotthe“endpoint”ofevolution.32

Itseemsweareasked to find, in thediscoveriesofCopernicusandDarwin,andFreud,Jung,andlaterpsychologists,evidenceforasuccessive“diminution”ofhumanity, thephilosophyofecocentrismtaking itsplaceasasortof logicaloutcome of these discoveries. This particular “argument” from scientificempiricismisnot,ofcourse,deductive,butrests,rathershakily,onaninductivereasoning with very few premises.33 Moreover, for science itself, the“discoveries,”ifsobering,haveoftenbeeninterpretedasproofofanascendancyof humanity, thus vindicating an anthropocentric outlook. Therefore, to whatextentcanthisallegeddiminutionbethoughttohavetakenplace?

MODERNSCIENCE

Tostudyanyof thegreatmindsof science is toencounterwhat seemsalmostparadoxical. For, on the surface, their particular perception often engenders aworld or universe that is more extensive, detailed, and interconnected, eventhough this is achieved through a narrowing of focus, a reductionism andanalysis.Theresolutionoftheparadox,though,liesinseeingthattheworldhasopenedupinonlyonedirection:“horizontally”towardsmateriality.Toviewthepicturethatsciencepresentsuswithistoseeonlywhatcanbemeasured,sinceallthosequalitiesthatcannotbemeasuredareeithernotincluded,orhavebeenconcealedundertheguiseofquantity.Hence,mathematicsandafewscientificinstruments proved heliocentrism and removed the hierarchy of planetary“spheres” surrounding a fixed earth. And while this did not disprove thepossibility of a non-material “vertical” ontological dimension, the belief thatempiricism was defined by only the measurable aspects of what our sensesrevealedcreatedtheimpressionthatithadunderminedit.Again, to study the purely material (measurable) aspect of life forms, as

CharlesDarwin (1809-1882)did, is toencounterall sortsofphysiologicalandbiologicalsimilaritiesandparallelsbetweenthose lifeforms.Suchastudyhadled,evenbeforeDarwin, to theviewthatanevolutionofbiological formshadoccurredover time.Darwin’sproposalofamechanism—natural selection—by

which the process of transformationmight take place, tended to obscure onceagain an alternative that relied on the operation of more subtle realities. Insuggesting a way by which living matter could over time be transformed,Darwin’stheoryprovidedcircumstantialevidence,convincingtomany34,thataCreatorofthesortWilliamPaleyhadenvisaged,35wasunnecessarytoaccountforwhatweseeintheworld.Sincelife,nowconsideredanepiphenomenonofmatter,was compelled to react to the “forcesofnature”—material forces—theidea that evolution isnot teleologicalbut randomanddirectionless, tookhold.Although nature was, in this way, capable of producingHomo sapiens fromother species, it could as likely abandon that branching and produce verydifferentalternatives.AfterDarwin’srevolutioninthought,theseparateareasofscience—allbased

onmeasurement—werepiecedtogether,36anditbecameclearthattheconceptofmaterialevolutioncouldbeappliedtotheuniverseinitsentirety.Studiesinphysics and chemistry combined to reveal a process of transformation from“singularity”tostar-filledvoid,thecreationofelementsinthehydrogen-fuelledfurnaceof thestars,andtheformationofplanets.Geologydescribedaprocesswhereby compounds of the basic elementsworked,with cataclysmic force, tomanufacture,fromlifelessrock,aworldwithspheresofairandwaterwherelifecould take hold. Chemistry and biology described the emergence of life fromsimplechemicalcompounds,andtraceditsgrowingcomplexityovertime.Suchcomplexityastheoutwardformdisplayedwasnevertheless“programmed”anddrivenbyrelativelysimpleinstructionsthatwereaparticulararrangementoffarsimplerchemicalbases.Indeed,notonlylifebutalsoallofthesubtlerfunctionsmanifestedwithinlifeforms—includinghighlevelsofconsciousness—couldbereduced to the movement and interaction over time of much simplercomponents: molecules, elements, and atoms, which respond to innatetendenciesor“lawsofnature.”Parallelsbetweenthehumanandanimalpsychecouldbemadebecausebothhad the sameorigins andcause.Considering thattoday,almostwithoutexception,thevariousfieldsofhumanendeavourendorsethis particular evolutionary view of the universe, and that it stands incontradistinctiontoallearlierworldviews, thedesignation“evolutionism”usedbytraditionalistwritersisnotinappropriate.37

ECOLOGY

Ecology,ascientificdisciplinetheconcepts,theories,andinsightsofwhichmostclearlyinfluenceecophilosophy,canbeconceivedasasynthesisofthesevariedbranchesofknowledge.Assuch,itsinheritanceistheviewofthefundamentallymaterial nature of the world, the concept of the evolution of matter, and aconcernwithoutermaterialform.Duringthelatterpartofthenineteenthcenturyandthroughoutthetwentieth,

the study of the interactions and interrelationships of individual organismsprovided increasingly detailed and elaborate theoretical constructs of the waynature operates. The study began with plants, and then incorporated animalecology.Theconceptoftheecosystem—anarbitrarywholemadeupofanumberofspeciestogetherwiththeirenvironment—showedhowasystemdependedonthe interaction of its components in order to function. Any ecosystem couldalways be subsumed into a larger one, and, although the idea of “humandisturbance” and “management” tended to perpetuate the distinction betweennature and its observer, eventually itwas suggested that humans and the totalenvironmentformedasinglewhole.38InGaia theory39averycomprehensivelevel of interaction and interdependence was identified; all of the biosphere,geosphere,andatmospherecouldbeconsideredtooperateasasingleentity.Thesunprovidesenergytorunthesystem,butlifeand“non-living”matteroperatesinsuchawayas tokeep temperatureswithinaspecific rangesuitable for life,even though the sun’s thermal output rises over time.40 As the ecologist,StephanHarding,makesclear, thisglobalecosystemneednotbeexpressiveofconsciousnessorteleology,butoperatesinaccordancewithDarwinianprinciplesofselection.41Nevertheless,lifenolongerjustreactstooutsideforces;inlargepart,itaccountsfortheseforces.Thewholeissotightlyboundtogetherthattoextractfromthiswholetwodifferentthings—lifeandanexternalenvironment—hasbecomelargelymeaningless.Now,whenGaiaisconceivedastheoveralloperationoflifeovereons,then

notallspeciescanbeessentialorevennecessarytoGaia’songoingfunctioning.Ironically, those species commonly considered nearly insignificant become, inthisoutlook,ofparamountimportance.Theearlylinksina“foodchain,”suchasphytoplanktonintheoceans,areexamples.ButLovelockseesthe“non-living”anaerobic muds of the continental shelves as possibly indispensable to thefunctioningofGaia.42AGaianperspective thusprovides aviewof theworldthatsupportstheecocentricoutlookand,itmightbethought,isconclusiveproofofthediminutionofhumanity.

However, it needs to be remembered that Lovelock, as any “ecologist,” isworkingwithintheparameterslaiddownbyscienceandassuchisobligedtoseein nature only data that can be quantified. Ecology, careful to avoid “value”judgements,observes,measures,categorizes,andcatalogues,theseparateforms,outwardmovements,activities,andprocesseswithinecosystems.Theworkingsof nature—the interactions between individuals, species, populations,communities,andecosystems—arestudiedas if theywereamachineofmanymovingparts,andinfacthaveoftenbeencomparedtosuch.43Althoughmostecologistsmaywellbeawareofvaluesthatcannoteasilybequantified—suchaslife44andconsciousness—andmay,likeanyoneelse,beovercomeattimesbyasense of the beauty and profundity of what they study, and suspect that themeaningorsignificanceof theseveralpartsofnature,orofnatureasawhole,lies elsewhere than in what can be measured, in the end these aspects or“feelings”arenotactuallyrelevanttoecology;theyarenotwhatisbeingstudiedand they cannot be incorporated into the strictly scientific discipline that isecology.45AndthisunderscoresthepointmadebyLeopold:theecologist“maybecomeascallousasanundertakertothemysteriesatwhichheofficiates.”46To this day, the willingness to explain the staggering complexity, intricacy,

subtlety,precision,diversity,purposiveness,dynamism,consciousness,andawe-inspiringbeautyoftheuniversebyreferencetoafewlawsandtheinnatenatureof constituent components of an unconscious materiality, remains part ofmainstreamscience,andcanborderonthecomplacent:

Onceonehasbecomeadjustedtotheideathatweareherebecausewehaveevolvedfromsimplechemicalcompoundsbyaprocessofnaturalselection,itisremarkablehowmanyoftheproblemsofthemodernworldtakeonacompletelynewlight.47

Many leading scientists continue to express exasperation in the face ofcolleagues who make such claims.48 Unfortunately, a mind committed tomathematical empiricism or reductionism becomes so used to restricting itsvisioninordertodealwiththeworldinaparticularway,itoftenimaginesnotjustthatanunderlyingstructurehasbeenexplained,butthattheultimatenatureofreality—theessenceofwhatthehumanbeingortheworldis—hasalsobeendemonstratedwiththismethod.

THEFALLACYOFDIMINUTION

When ecophilosophy utilizes the meta-narrative of science—the concludingphrases of which now describe a Gaian ecological perspective—to supportecocentrism,itischoosing,forthesakeofaparticularend,justthisrestrictionofvision.Inthemannerofamathematicalequation,thepreservationofthelifeofthe world (or the ecosphere) is made to equate with the equal regard for therightsofallcomponentsofthatworld.Inthe“equation,”wefindthatonlythequantitativeaspectsarewritten in. If theotheraspectscommontoa traditionalhierarchicalperspectivearenoticed,theyarenotdeemedrelevanttothesum.Ifhumans,asthespeciesHomosapiens,arenomoreimportanttothefunctioningof the global ecosystem than any number of other species, then they have noright to claim ethical pre-eminence over those others. Thus, an ethicalequivalenceismadefromamaterialequivalence,andisboughtattheexpenseofalltherest.Isthediminutioninquestion,then,somethingofasleight-of-hand?Firstly,itshouldbemadeclearthatthemeritsofsomethinglikeanecocentric

approach—that is, an approach that does not only see things in terms of theirinstrumental value, is not anthropocentric, and respects the contributionwhichall lifemakes to thewhole—is not the point of dispute. Howeverworthy theunderlyingspiritofecocentrism,theneedhereistoseethat,whenitisarrivedatthroughrecourse to thefindingsofscientific reductionismandmeasurement,anumberofqualitieswillbeputtooneside.Clearly,ecocentrismdoesnotsetoutto discount all the special capacities of humans that it can envisage. Its aim,rather, is to disallow that these capacities make a difference to ethicalconsiderability.However, itmustbeaskedwhether theadoptionofascientificperspective does not itself engender a limited apprehension of what thosecapacitiesmightbe,andthusinturninfluenceecophilosopherstodownplayourdifferenceinrelationtootherspeciesandsoreachtheconclusionstheydo.Because scientific empiricism or reductionism shifts our focus to the

quantifiable aspects of things, the successivediscoveries of science (bywhichthenatureof“matter”isthoughttoberevealed)maybeseentobejustasmuchveilings;theydonotjustuncoverotherrealities,butobscurewhateverelsemightbethere.Byconcentratingonlyonwhatismeasurable,oneoftwothingshappentothenon-measurablequalitiesoftheworld:theyareeitherdeniedaltogether,ortheyarerelegatedtoamorenebulousexistencewithinindividualconsciousness;they become psychic states. Having grown used to the distinction betweenmaterialthingsandthethingsofthemind,wehaveforgottenthatthedistinctionis actually artificial.The “matter”which science talksof is in fact not a thing

thatexistsindependentlyofscience.Sciencehasnotdiscoveredwhatmatteris;nor does it study a reality that can be termed “matter.” Rather, science hasdefinedwhatmatteristhroughthemeasuringormathematicalapproachittakes.Tolookatonlyquantifiabledatais,asitwere,tobeginwearinglensesthatallowonlyvisioninshadesofgrey,andtoeventuallyclaimthatcolourisnotrealbutimaginary. It is thus that, historically, the more subtle ontological states—acknowledged by philosophers prior to the advent of modern science—progressively “disappear” from the world, and begin to inhabit an interior,“psychic” domain. Divinity—once the ultimate ground of being—has beenremoved,ashasthesubtleelementbeauty,whilethecorrespondingfeelingstheyinspire—wonder, awe, love, joy, serenity, humility, a sense of sacredness—arenolongerbelievedtoariseinresponsetoourperceptionofthesethings,buttohavetheirorigininhumanconsciousness.Theneatdivisionbetweenanexteriorworld and an interior one might seem plausible, and it lends credence to aclassificationsysteminwhichsomethingsarebelievedlessrealthanothers.Butit persists, and is made coherent, only so long as our faith in measurementpersists.Eventhegrandnarrativeofsciencethatposits theevolutionaryunfoldingof

theuniversedoesnotsomuchdemonstratethevalidityoftheduality,butitselfhinges upon it. In this model, the simplicity of hydrogen “evolves”—in thenuclear furnace it creates when subjected to gravity—to helium and thenprogressively each of the other elements up to iron. The process of elementalcreation iscompleted in theoutpouringof supernovae.Asolar systemwithanearth-likeplanetdevelops,afterwhichcomesthecomplexcyclingofmoleculesin gaseous, liquid, and solid forms. Life manifests, and then increasinglycomplex and subtle sensory systems. Finally, within suitably complexorganisms,consciousnessemergesandismanifestedinevermoresubtleways.The final stages of this ascending order seem to be expressed most fully inhumans.From one point of view, then, we are presented with a hierarchically

structured ontology that attests to the pre-eminence of humanity. Yet,ecophilosophy is right to sense that this “pre-eminence” is granted littlesignificance while it rests on the primacy of matter. When the immaterialqualities—whichare categorized in termsof aspectsof consciousness—appearto be no more than a prolongation of the ascending movement found in thematerialrealm,thentheargumentfortheessentialequivalenceofthingsappearsreasonable.However,thenowfamiliarcosmologyusedtosupportthisargument

isitselfunderpinnedbythesuppositionthatmeasurablequalitiesaremorereal;a world wherein matter produces consciousness is built out of the belief thatmatter is defined by measurable characteristics. Thus, a type of circularreinforcementhasbeensetup,whichcreates theillusionofavalidworldview.Its collapse is prevented only as long as we believe in the legitimacy of thepremise of measurement. No logic requires this of us, and our intuition—justifiably outraged by the diminished and seemingly back to frontworld thispremiseimplies—mustseektheruinofsuchasystem.The pre-scientific tradition of thehierarchyofBeing,which in one formor

anotherfoundexpressionintheworld’smetaphysicaltraditions,notonlyclassesas objective all the non-measurable qualities known to consciousness, but,becauseitisbasedonemanationsfromOnenessorDivinity,exactlyreversestheorderimposedbyscientificknowledge.Insteadofthehierarchybeingassembledfrom material components upon a foundation of materiality, it relies on anemergencefromthetopdown,asitwere.Toimaginethistraditionalaccountofontological hierarchy to be founded on littlemore thanwishful thinking is toholdfarmorestoreinthescientificmethodthanisjustified.Thosewhoinsistonconceiving the “upper” realms in terms of the materiality to which sciencesubscribes, and then foolishly claim lack of evidence for their objectiveexistence, display an ignorance of ontological possibility and a failure torecognizethelimitationsofscientificmethod.Thisalternativestructureremainshidden to science only—and precisely—because it is inaccessible to scientificmeasurement.ItisnotthefaultofsciencethatthehierarchyofBeingmaynotbeencompassedbyrecoursetoitsmethod,butitiswrongtopresumethatitmustbe.

REASONANDPERCEPTION

Toabandonthetraditionaloutlook,asphilosophyundertheinfluenceofmodernsciencehasbeenconstrainedtodo,infavourofascientificoutlookthatbelievesmany aspects of theworld to have their origin and location in the individualconsciousness,istoinevitablyconcludethatLeopoldwasmistakeninhisview,and that beauty is subjective.This is just theposition ecophilosophyhas beenobligedtohold:thebeautyLeopoldattestediseitherdismissedbecauseitisnotmeasurableintheway“integrity”and“stability”mightbe,oritistreatedasifitwere real. Thus Callicott, in his appraisal of Leopold’s land aesthetic, rightlyextendstheaestheticexperiencebeyondthevisual:

The appreciation of an environment’s natural beauty can involve the ears(thesoundsofrain,insects,birds,orsilenceitself),thesurfaceoftheskin(thewarmth of the sun, the chill of thewind, the texture of grass, rock,sand),thenoseandtongue(thefragranceofflowers,theodorofdecay,thetasteofsapsandwaters).49

“But,”hesays,“itisnotenoughsimplytoopenthesensestonaturalstimuliand enjoy.”50 Since the appreciation of beauty “can involve the mind, thefaculty of cognition . . . [then] ecology, history, paleontology, geology,biogeography—each a form of knowledge or cognition—penetrate the surfaceprovided by direct sensory experience and supply substance to ‘scenery.’”Callicotts’sclaimisthatthelandaesthetic“involvesasubtleinterplaybetweenconceptual schemata and sensuous experience.”51 In other words, thoughtinformsexperiencesothat“whatoneexperiencesisasmuchaproductofhowonethinksasitistheconditionofone’ssensesandthespecificcontentofone’senvironment.”52InCallicott’sownexperience,beautyinnature“isafunctionofthepalpableorganizationandclosureoftheinterconnectedlivingcomponents.”However,“theseconnectionsandrelationsarenotdirectlysensedintheaestheticmoment, they are known and projected. . . . It is this conceptual act thatcompletesthesensoryexperienceandcausesittobedistinctlyaesthetic.”53Callicott resists the disclaimer that beauty is not actually part of nature.

Nevertheless, forhim thehigher levelsof aesthetic appreciationaredependentonour ownparticularconceptual appraisal of the forms of nature.But, aswehave seen, for Leopold beauty is an aspect of the world, and there is nonecessary concordance between beauty and conceptual knowledge. Beauty isseenasperceptual,not rational;assuch, if there isahierarchy involved it isahierarchy of perception, or non-rational consciousness, corresponding to anontologicalhierarchy.Inaworldwherethemindorreason—heldtobeparamount—istakentobe

themediatorofperception,theideaofadirectperceptionoftheworldasit is,independentof the reason, soundsanachronistic.Westernphilosophyhas livedwith the ideaofbothsensoryand rational limitsever sinceKant,whoshowedthat the rational mind, imposing its a priori assumptions upon the sensoryimpressions, inevitably modifies them. Although prepared to imagine thenoumenon(Dingansich,the“thing-in-itself”),hebelievedtherewasnofacultyadequatetoitsperception.Thisconclusionseemsinevitable,though,considering

it is reached, precisely, through an engagement with rational processes. Aninordinatefaithintherationalmodeofconsciousnesswas,aspreviouslynoted,nottheoriginalintentionofphilosophy.AsFrithjofSchuonobserves,

Reasonisformalbyitsnatureandformalisticinitsoperations;itproceedsby coagulations, by alternatives andby exclusions—or, it canbe said, bypartialtruths...ittouchesonessencesonlythroughdrawingconclusions,notbydirectvision; it is indispensableforverbalformulationsbut itdoesnotinvolveimmediateknowledge.54

By this account, virtually all post-Renaissance philosophy is questionableprecisely because of its preoccupationwith the rational faculty as ameans toknowledgeandbyitsfailuretoeitherdiscernorincorporatethenon-rationalorperceptiveelementitlacks.TocoherentlyreinstatethehierarchyofbeautythatLeopold considers to be in nature requires the reinstatement of a mode ofconsciousness,orperceptive faculty,adequate to the taskofperceivingall thatbeautyis.

FOOTNOTES

1Tragically, not natural catastrophe but the extraordinarily careless actions ofhumanitywill likelybe toblame.Wemight isolate adozendifferentwayswecould be accountable, from the dousing of soils and water with chemicalspoisonous to life, the stripping bare of vast areas of forested land and theunforeseenconsequencesofblastingitwithnuclearbombs,toirradiatingitwithdepleted uranium, tinkering with global weather patterns throughelectromagneticmeans, or even effecting a shift in tectonicplates throughourseismic experiments. But, at the time of writing, the catastrophe that loomslarger than any other, and which threatens disruption of the ecosphere, is theeffectofanincreaseinthelevelofafewgases—mainlycarbondioxide—intheatmosphere.The resultant “greenhouse effect” is producing a globalwarming.Extremeweatherconditions,meltingoftheArcticandAntarcticicecaps,hugelyraised sea levels, a reduction of Earth’s albedo, the extinction of oceanicphytoplankton,andtheincreasinglikelihoodofvegetationbeingsetablazeandproducinga“runaway”effect,areallprobableconsequences.IfJamesLovelockisright,then“Gaia”—theecosphereasahugeself-regulatingsystem—hasbeenoperatingtoguardagainstjustthisscenario,thelivingmatteroftheEarthhaving

workedtokeeptheplanetcoolenoughtoallowitsongoingexistence.SeeJamesLovelock,Gaia:ANewLookatLifeonEarth(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1995),andTheRevengeofGaia(London:Penguin,2006).Earlyin2006,theUSNationalOceanic andAtmosphericAdministration reported an abrupt increasein carbon dioxide levels over the previous four years. “Scientists believe thismay be the first evidence that climate change is starting to produce itself, asrising temperatures so alter natural systems that the Earth itself releasesmoregas,drivingthethermometerevenhigher”(GeoffreyLean,“GlobalWarmingtoSpeed up as Carbon Levels Show Sharp Rise,”The Independent, January 15,2006).InSeptember2007,theInternationalInstituteforStrategicStudies(IISS)conceded: “if the emission of greenhouse gases . . . is allowed to continueunchecked, theeffectswillbecatastrophic—onthelevelofnuclearwar”(IISSReportreleasedbyReuters,September12,2007).2 Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990), astartlingbookonlytwentyyearsagobecauseofitsforcefulportrayalofanEarththathasbecomeapartlyhumanconstruct,alreadyhasthesavourofoldnews.3J.BairdCallicott, “ConceptualResources forEnvironmentalEthics inAsianTraditions of Thought: A Propaedeutic,” Philosophy East and West 37, No.2(1987):p.115.4 Perhaps the most significant alteration of landscapes by relatively smallnumbers of people was achieved by the practice of “fire-stick farming.”Continuallysettinglighttotheforestsencouragedthegrowthofopengrasslandfavourable to food species. In this way, both the Australian Aborigines andAmerican Indians drastically altered their environment. Since the AgrarianRevolution, therehavebeenmanyinstancesof land“degradation.”The impactofRomanagricultureonthecoastallandsofNorthAfricaisacaseinpoint.Inmorerecenttimes—andstillwithsimpletechnology—peoplehaveevencreateddesertsinIndiaandAfrica.AsLovelockobserves,“Itisintheseregionsofvastdisturbance, the dust bowls, that man and his livestock have most markedlyloweredthepotentialforlife”(Lovelock,Gaia:ANewLookatLifeonEarth,p.105).5ForEdwardGoldsmithit ismodernhumanitythat isresponsiblefor“rapidlydestroyingthenaturalworld.”Incontrast,“themainfeaturesoftheworldviewofearlyvernacularsocietieswereeverywherebasicallythesame.Theyemphasizedtwofundamentalprinciples thatnecessarilyunderlieanyecologicalworldview.ThefirstisthatthelivingworldorBiosphereisthebasicsourceofallbenefits

andhenceofallwealth,butwillonlydispensethesebenefitstousifwepreserveitscriticalorder.Fromthisfundamentalfirstprinciplefollowsthesecond,whichisthattheoverridinggoalofthebehaviourpatternofanecologicalsocietymustbetopreservethecriticalorderofthenaturalworldorofthecosmos”(EdwardGoldsmith, The Way: An Ecological Worldview [London: Random Century,1992],pp.xiandxvii).AndPhilipSherrardobservesthat“Inthegreatcreativeculturesoftheworld,humanbeings...donotlookuponwhatwecalltheouterworld,theworldofnature,asamerechanceassociationofatomsorwhatever,oras something impersonal, soulless, inanimate, which they are entitled tomanipulate,master,exploitandgenerallytotamperandmessaboutwithinorderto gratify their greeds and their power-lusts. They look upon nature . . . as adivine creation, as full of a hidden wisdom. . . . They may in ignorance beexcessive in their demands . . . in grazing their flocks or in felling toomanytrees. But they do not deliberately trade in nature itself, or at the expense ofnature” (Philip Sherrard, Human Image: World Image [Ipswich: GolgonoozaPress,1992],pp.4-5).6 S. H. Nasr, The Spiritual and Religious Dimensions of the EnvironmentalCrisis (London: Temenos Academy, 1999), p. 8. Nasr continues: “from apractical point of view the only ethics which can be acceptable to the vastmajority, at the presentmoment in the history of theworld, is still a religiousethics.TheverystrongprejudiceagainstreligiousethicsincertaincirclesintheWest,whichhavenowbecomeconcernedwiththeenvironmentalcrisis,isitselfoneofthegreatestimpedimentstothesolutionoftheenvironmentalcrisisitself”(Nasr,The Spiritual andReligiousDimensions of theEnvironmentalCrisis,p.9).7SeeNasr,TheSpiritualandReligiousDimensionsoftheEnvironmentalCrisis,p.8.8AlgisUždavinys, ed.,TheGoldenChain:AnAnthologyofPythagoreanandPlatonicPhilosophy (Bloomington:WorldWisdom, 2004), p. xi. For AnandaCoomaraswamy, “Modern philosophies are closed systems, employing themethod of dialectics, and taking for granted that opposites are mutuallyexclusive. In modern philosophy things are either so or not so; in eternalphilosophy this dependsuponour point of view.Metaphysics is not a system,but a consistent doctrine; it is not merely concerned with conditioned andquantitativeexperiencebutwithuniversalpossibility”(AnandaCoomaraswamyquotedinKenneth(Harry)Oldmeadow,Traditionalism:ReligionintheLightof

thePerennialPhilosophy [Colombo:SriLankaInstituteofTraditionalStudies,2000],p.88).9 The process by which environmental ethics developed from its roots ininstrumental value theory and moral extensionism, to “ethical holism” andintrinsicvaluetheory,andontowardsthemeta-ethicalapproachofdeepecology,hasbeendocumentedwellinNash’sTheRightsofNature.10Facedwiththedestructionoftheveryfoundationonwhichhumanlifeanditsculturerest,manyofthefamiliarphilosophicalquestionsanddebateshavecometoseemirrelevanttosaytheleast.AsKarlPopperonceobserved,“thegreatestscandalofphilosophyisthat,whileallaroundustheworldofnatureperishes...philosopherscontinuetotalk,sometimescleverlyandsometimesnot,aboutthequestion ofwhether thisworld exists” (KarlR. Popper,ObjectiveKnowledge:AnEvolutionaryApproach[Oxford:ClarendonPress,1974],p.32).11J.BairdCallicott,“What’sWrongwiththeCaseforMoralPluralism”(paperpresented at the sixty-third annual meeting of the American PhilosophicalAssociation,Berkeley,California,March23,1989).12FreyaMathews,The Ecological Self (Maryland: Barnes andNoble, 1991),p.49.13 The best source of articles exploring traditional systems of thought in thecontextofenvironmentalismisthejournalEnvironmentalEthics,whichbeganin1979.14 See the chapters “Religion, Spirituality and the Green Movement,” and“GreenCritiquesofScienceandKnowledge”inHay,MainCurrentsinWesternEnvironmentalThought.15The“popularizers”ofsciencearerenownedforexpressingthisview.See,forexample,CarlSagan,TheDemon-HauntedWorld(London:Headline,1996),andThe Dragons of Eden (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1977); and RichardDawkins,Unweaving theRainbow (London:Penguin,1998), andRiverOut ofEden(London:Phoenix,1995).16CharlesBirchandJohnCobbJr.,TheLiberationofLife:FromtheCelltotheCommunity(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1981).17 SeeWarwick Fox, Toward a Transpersonal Ecology (Boston: Shambhala,1990),chapter8.18 Genesis, 1: 28 and 9: 2. Obviously some distinction may be made here

regarding Islam since, although it recognizes the authority of the Bible, theQur’anandtheSunnah(orexample)oftheProphetwerealwaysthechiefguidesinmattersrelatingtothetreatmentoftheEarth.19Hay,MainCurrentsinWesternEnvironmentalThought,p.116.20Thereare,ofcourse,variousperspectivesor“camps”withinecophilosophy,eachofwhichmakesimportantcontributionstoanunderstandingofthehuman-naturerelationship.Forinstance,muchofwhatecofeminismhastosayaboutanoverlyrationalisticmasculinementalityisverymuchtothepoint.Itisdifficultto deny that whenever violence is done to the Earth it is done in the almostcomplete absenceof the sympathetic feminine sideof ournatures. Indeed, thehistorianRichardTarnashassummedupthewholeenterpriseofourcivilizationasthesubversionofthefeminineelementinourconsciousness:“theevolutionoftheWesternmindhasbeendrivenbyaheroicimpulsetoforgeanautonomousrational human self by separating it from the primordial unity with nature”(RichardTarnas,ThePassionoftheWesternMind[NewYork:Ballantine,1991],p.441).However,sincetheaimhereisnot toassesswhat isworthwhileaboutecophilosophy,but rather to identifyanddealwith the significant features thatareproblematic, thefollowingaccountrestricts itself to theparticularelementsofmodernismthatsteerecophilosophyawayfromtraditionalthought.21A significant parallel event was the first visual reminder of this holism: aphotographofEarth from space.The astronomerFredHoyle had remarked asearly as 1948: “Once a photograph of the Earth, taken from the outside, isavailable...anewideaaspowerfulasanyinhistorywillbeletloose”(HoylequotedinThisIslandEarth,ed.OranW.Nicks[Washington,DC:NASA,1970],p.30).22WilliamGodfrey-Smithcategorizesfourwaysinwhichtheenvironmentcanbe seen as useful and therefore worthy of being preserved: as “silo,”“laboratory,”“gymnasium,”and“cathedral.”SeeWilliamGodfrey-Smith,“TheValueofWilderness,”EnvironmentalEthics 1 (1979):pp.309-19.Foxdividesthe last category into two—producing “aesthetic” and “cathedral”—and adds“life-support,”“earlywarningsystem,”“monument,”and“psycho-genetic”(thatwhich pertains to psychological development), to arrive at nine arguments forpreservation(Fox,TowardATranspersonalEcology,pp.154-161).23 Two prominent philosophers in this field were Peter Singer (see AnimalLiberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals [NewYork: RandomHouse, 1975]), and Tom Regan (see The Case for Animal Rights [Berkeley:

UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1983]).24KennethGoodpaster argued for themoral considerability of all life in “OnBeing Morally Considerable,” Journal of Philosophy Vol.75 (1978): p. 310,while Christopher D. Stone proposed extending legal rights to non-humanentities in “Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for NaturalObjects,”SouthernCaliforniaLawReview45(Spring1972).25 Various ecofeminist authors argue that this extension of “rights” toindividualsisindicativeofatypicallymale“hierarchical”approachtoethics.Incontrast, the female is considered innately more attuned to a sense of non-hierarchical “interrelatedness.” On this subject see Susan Griffin,Woman andNature: The Roaring Inside Her (New York: Harper Collins, 1978); YnestraKing,“TheEcologyofFeminismandtheFeminismofEcology,”inHealingtheWounds: The Promise of Ecofeminism, ed. J. Plant (Philadelphia, Pa.: NewSociety, 1989), pp. 1-28;ArielKaySalleh, “DeeperThanDeepEcology:TheEcoFeministConnection,”EnvironmentalEthics6 (Winter1984):pp.339-345;andCarolynMerchant,TheDeathofNature:Women,EcologyandtheScientificRevolution(SanFrancisco:HarperCollins,1980).26 Warwick Fox, “Deep Ecology: A New Philosophy of our Time?” TheEcologistVol.14(1984):p.89.27ForNasr,“Thefactremainsthatthevastmajorityofthepeopleintheworlddonot accept any ethicswhichdoes not have a religious foundation. . . . If areligiousfigure...goestoavillageandtellsthevillagersthatfromthepointofviewof theShariah (IslamicLaw) or theLawofManu (Hindu law) they areforbiddentocutthistree,manypeoplewouldaccept.ButifsomegraduatefromtheUniversityofDelhiorKarachi,whoisagovernmentofficialcomesandsays,for rational reasons, that it is better not to cut this tree, few would heed hisadvice” (Nasr, The Spiritual and Religious Dimensions of the EnvironmentalCrisis,p.9).28 Murray Bookchin, “Social Ecology versus ‘Deep Ecology,’” GreenPerspectives:NewsletteroftheGreenProgramProject4/5(Summer1987):pp.1-23.29Bookchin,“SocialEcologyversus‘DeepEcology,’”p.4.Bookchin’scritiqueofthenonanthropocentricviewissummedupinhisRe-EnchantingHumanity:ADefense of the Human Spirit against Antihumanism, Misanthropy, andPrimitivism(London:Cassell,1995).

30WilliamShakespeare,Hamlet,ActII:SceneII.31 The adoption by some of this new view hasmeant that it is no longer souncommontoencounter—whilewarragesanduncountednumbersofpeoplearekilledormaimed—anexpressionofconcernforsomeparticularspeciesorotherwhosehabitatwillbedevastated.32Fox,TowardaTranspersonalEcology,p.14.33TheCopernicantheoryisuniqueherebecauseitisarediscoveryofwhatcanbe plainly worked out using simple reasoning, and shown to be true. Othertheoriescannotbepositivelyproveninthesameway,sincethefactstheyusedonot discount alternative conclusions. Moreover, as we shall see, recourse toempiricalevidence—whichforsciencemeans,ultimately,whatcanbemeasured—caneasilyobscureother“facts”relating toboth theworldand to thehumansphere.34 To ecophilosophers, it is perhaps the chief persuasion against an arrogantanthropo centrism. For Roderick Nash, “The evolutionary explanation of theproliferation of life on earth undermined dualistic philosophies at least twothousandyearsold....NomorespecialcreationintheimageofGod,nomoreimmortal‘soul,’and,itfollowed,nomoredominionorexpectationthattherestof nature existed to serve one precocious primate” (Roderick Nash, “AldoLeopold’sIntellectualHeritage,”inCompaniontoASandCountyAlmanac,ed.J.BairdCallicott[Wisconsin:UniversityofWisconsin,1987],p.67).35 In his well-known argument from design, the philosopher William Paley(1743-1805) considers the countless examples of the precise fit of biologicalformstotheirenvironmentor,inthecaseoforgans,totheirpurpose.Tofindthissort of precision is, in the famous analogy, equivalent to finding a workingwatch;onereadilyconcludestheexistenceofawatchmaker.36Neo-Darwinismwasasynthesisofthedataandtheoriesofsuchdisciplinesasbiology, taxonomy, embryology, paleontology and genetics made during the1930sand1940sbyJulianHuxley,ErnstMayr,GeorgeSimpsonandothers.37Precariousfromitsinception,despitetheconfidentdefenceofitssupporters,it seems only amatter of time before even sciencewill be forced to redefinetransformist theory.Therearenowmanybooksandarticles (somemoreastutethanothers)whicharguethatthebasicassumptionsofevolutionarytheoryare,atthe least, flawed because the facts no longer support them. They include:Douglas Dewar, The Transformist Illusion (Ghent NY: Sophia Perennis et

Universalis, 1995);EvanShute,Flaws in theTheoryofEvolution (NutleyNJ:Craig Press, 1961); Michael Denton,Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London:Burnett, 1985); G. Sermonti and R. Fondi, Dopo Darwin: Critica all’evoluzionismo(Milan:Rusconi,1980);W.Kuhn,StolpersteinedesDarwinismus(Berneck: Schwengeler-Verlag, 1985); Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial(Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993); Michael Behe, Darwin’sBlack Box (NewYork: The Free Press, 1996); andOsman Bakar,Critique ofEvolutionary Theory (Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Academy of Science andNurinEnterprise,1987), acollectionofessaysby traditionalistwritersaswell as thebiologists W.R. Thompson and Giuseppe Sermonti. In one of the mostpenetratinganalyses,TitusBurckhardtdrawsourattentiontoscience’sfailuretodistinguish between qualitative form and quantitative substance. Under theheading “Evolutionism,” hewrites: “classical hylomorphism . . . distinguishesthe‘form’ofathingorbeing—thesealofitsessentialunity—fromits‘matter’,namely the plastic substance which receives this seal and furnishes it with aconcreteandlimitedexistence.Nomoderntheoryhaseverbeenabletoreplacethisancienttheory,forthefactofreducingthewholeplenitudeoftherealtooneor other of its ‘dimensions’ hardly amounts to an explanation of it. ModernscienceisignorantaboveallofwhattheAncientsdesignatedbytheterm‘form’,preciselybecauseitishereaquestionofanon-quantitativeaspectofthings,andthis ignorance is not unconnected with the fact that modern science sees nocriterioninthebeautyoruglinessofaphenomenon:thebeautyofathingisthesignofitsinternalunity,itsconformitywithanindivisibleessence,andthuswitha reality that will not let itself be counted or measured. . . . In a word,evolutionism results from an incapacity—peculiar to modern science—toconceive ‘dimensions’ of reality other than purely physical ones” (TitusBurckhardt,TheMirroroftheIntellect[Cambridge:QuintaEssentia,1987],pp.33and40).38Forexample,seeF.E.Egler,TheWayofScience:APhilosophyofEcologyfortheLayman(NewYork:Hafner,1970),p.126.Eglercallsthewholethe“TotalHuman Ecosystem.” McKibben is suggesting the same idea in The End ofNature.39SeeLovelock,Gaia,ANewLookatLifeonEarth.40Itshouldbenotedthatthisunderstandingofeverything—life,air,oceans,androcks—doingtheregulatingissomewhatmoresubtlethanLovelock’soriginalconception,whichwasthatlifemodifiedtheatmosphereandgeospheretocreate

conditionscomfortableforitself.Seetheoriginal1979editionofGaia:ANewLookatLifeonEarth.41 Early critics saw “Gaia” as demonstrating altruism and therefore beingincompatiblewithnaturalselection.However,accordingtoHarding,“KeyGaianorganisms hugely influence the global commons as a side-effect of pursuingtheirown individualwell-being.Rainforest treesemit cloud-seedingchemicalswhich stimulate rain and scavenge nutrients from the air. Trees, lichens andbacteriaweatherrockstofindnutrients.Marinealgaemaketheprecursoroftheircloud-seeding gas in order to deal with the salt stress they encounter in theocean,and . . . theydosotopromotedispersalbyhoistingthemselvesaloft intheupdraftsofairgeneratedbycloudcondensation.Gaia theoryproposes thatmany such local effects weave and link together into an awesome andunexpected emergent property: the life-like ability of the Earth as a whole toregulate key variables essential for life. Gaia theory thus extends naturalselectiontoincludetheevolutionoforganismsandtheirphysicalenvironmentasa tightly coupled whole” (Stephan Harding, “Exploring Gaia,” ResurgenceJanuary/February[2001]).42Lovelockwrites:“Itisthroughtheburialofcarbonintheanaerobicmudsofthe sea-bed that a net increment of oxygen in the atmosphere is ensured. . . .Oxygen regulation is a key Gaian process and the fact that it occurs on thecontinental shelves of the Earth emphasizes their singular importance”(Lovelock,Gaia,ANewLookatLifeonEarth,pp.112-113).43 For example, in Paul Ehrlich,TheMachinery of Nature (London: Collins,1986).44Lovelockconcedesthatthe“stateofmatter”knownaslife“hassofarresistedall attempts at a formal physical definition” (Lovelock,Gaia: ANew Look atLifeonEarth,p.144).45HenceLovelock,afterinitialcriticismofhistheory,hasreluctantlyconcededthat“ToestablishGaiaasfactImusttakethe...path...ofscience....[And]the new science of Gaia, geophysiology, must be purged of all reference tomysticalnotionsofGaia theEarthMother.”Accordingly,hehasgone togreatlengths to demonstrate that Gaia theory conforms to a strictly quantitativeanalysis by resorting to the increasingly sophisticated computer modelling of“daisyworld”(Lovelock,prefacetoGaia,ANewLookatLifeonEarth [1995edition],pp.ixandxi).

46Leopold,ASandCountyAlmanac,p.174.47 Francis Crick, Of Molecules and Men (Washington: University ofWashington,1966),p.87.ElsewhereCrickwrites:“Theastonishinghypothesisis that ‘You’,your joysandsorrows,yourmemoriesandyourambitions,yoursenseofpersonalidentityandfreewill,areinfactnomorethanthebehaviourofa vast assembly of nerve cells and their associatedmolecules” (FrancisCrick,TheAstonishingHypothesis[NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1995]).Inthesamevein,CarlSaganwrites:“Theentirerecenthistoryofbiologyshowsthatweare,toaremarkabledegree, theresultsof theinteractionsofanextremelycomplexarrayofmolecules”(Sagan,TheDragonsofEden,p.7).48Forexample,themathematicianRogerPenrose,facedwiththeoverwhelmingdifficultyofdefininghumanconsciousnessor intelligence,confesses:“Perhapswe should seriously consider thepossibility that our intelligencemight indeedrequiresomekindofactofGod—andthatitcannotbeexplainedintermsofthatscience which has become so successful in the description of the inanimateworld”(RogerPenrose,ShadowsoftheMind[Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1994],p.144).49 J. BairdCallicott, “TheLandAesthetic,” inCompanion toA SandCountyAlmanac,p.161.50Callicott,“TheLandAesthetic,”p.164.51Callicott,“TheLandAesthetic,”pp.161and163.52Callicott,“TheLandAesthetic,”p.164.53Callicott,“TheLandAesthetic,”pp.165-166.54FrithjofSchuon,UnderstandingIslam(Bloomington:WorldWisdom,1994),p.15.

CHAPTERFOUR

EcophilosophyintheLightofTradition

While the science of ecology may be used to support a comprehensiveenvironmental ethic like ecocentrism, the tenets of religion, which treat asobjective thatwhich science takes to be unreal, are foundwanting in just thisregard.Religion,becauseitdealsprimarilywiththerelationshipofpeoplewithaDivinityortheirhigherSelf,tooeasilyfallspreytotheperceivedshortcomingsof a “humanistic” or “anthropocentric” outlook; it cannot easily resist thetendency tobearourown interests inmindbefore thatofother species (ifnotdisregard their interests altogether). Ecophilosophers are often passionatelyconcerned to distance themselves from a style of thinking that either takes noaccount of the interests of nature in toto, or downgrades those interests.However, in attempting to divest itself of a humanistic or anthropocentricframework, ecophilosophy has relinquished not only any allegiance it mighthavehadtohumanpriorityoverothercreaturesbut,byassociation,allegiancetothose very human qualities that religion sees as part of our nature andwhichcreateforusourpositioninrespecttonature.The polymath Jacob Bronowski oncemade an important observation about

human uniqueness. “Man,” he said, “is not a figure in the landscape—he is ashaper of the landscape. . . . [He] is distinguished from other animals by hisimaginative gifts” and his reason.1 It is in exercising those faculties that westandapartfrom,andobjectifynature.Butthisisonlyhalfthestory.Thesenses,by contrast, bring nature to us; they are a means by which nature—theenvironment—communicateswithusandwebecome,inaway,nature’ssubject.Thesensesbringform,texture,colour,soundandsoon;theyalsochannelmoresubtleperceptionslikethoseofbeautyorthesacred.Ifitisournaturetoharboursuchperceptions,thentheyarealsoapartofwhatdistinguishesourhumanity—no less a part of our nature than the faculties that give us the power to breaknatureapartandput itback together innewways.Toconceptuallyremoveus,therefore,fromourpositionofobserver,assessor,manipulator,orrecipientoftheworld’sproperties,andthenplaceusintonatureasbeingssimilartoallothers,istodivestusoftheveryattributesthatformapartofournature,andwhich,inthecontext of environmentalism, lend wings to the passionate and voluntaryinvolvementin,andcompassionfor,thestateofthenaturalworld.Althoughthe

science of ecology has conceptually removed us from a position of centrality,thisalonedoesnotentailanecologicalworldview.2Equally,thereisnoevidencethatinstillinganecocentricoutlookwillfosterafeelingofidentitywithnature.Interestingly,andincontradistinction,itispreciselyfeeling,resultingfromthe

operationofjustthoseperceptionsthatarepartofournature,thatis(aswesawinpartone)ofthegreatestimportance.Ouruniquesenseofbeauty,andthesenseofthesacredintowhichitextends,isindeedwhatengagesusinourconcernandlove for theworld. If it is impossible to bemoved by evidence thatwe are aspecieslikeanyother, it ispossible, throughanengagementwith thosehigher,human,facultiestobemovedbythesenseofthesignificanceandvalueofotherbeingsandtheworldingeneral.When,therefore,itissuggestedthatweneedacompletely new paradigm to inform our interactionwith the environment, theassumption seems to be that, unless the outlook is broadly ecocentric, thereexiststhedangerofattemptingtomarryalessthanappropriatephilosophytoamovementthatasksonlythatalloftheworld’slifebeworthyofconsideration.Yetthisassumptionisfallacious.Itcanbedemonstratedempiricallythatanon-ecocentric approach is not at odds with suitable environmental practice. Atendency tominimize impact and destruction, to seek to repairwhat has beendamaged,andtocarefornatureaswellashumanlife,istobefoundnolessin“anthropocentric”philosophy.TheolderLeopold’soutlookisaclassicresponseinthismould,astooisthelifestyleandpragmaticethicsofAlbertSchweitzer.3NorneedweexcludemanyoftheEasternreligioustraditions,whichareeasilyable to balance a metaphysics that includes the supranatural and humanpreeminence with an ethical and compassionate concern for all life thatminimizes environmental impact through a general philosophy of detachmentfrom the world.4 Nor, as we shall see shortly, need we exclude even theAbrahamic religions. It may appear contradictory, but a genuinely livedphilosophy of this type—that is, one that directs consciousness away from apreoccupationwiththeworld—canbeenvironmentallysensitiveandconservingofresources.Thisisbecause,asNasrsays,traditional“man,”

whoovertheageslivedforthemostpartinharmonywithnature,viewedhimself,notsomuchaswhathe“was”butaswhatheshouldbe...beforethemodernperiod,whenmancametobeseenashavingascendedfromtheapewithnospiritualandethicallysignificantprototype,traditionsallovertheworldenvisagedmanashavingaspiritualarchetypefromwhichhehad

fallenordescended,andthatarchetyperemainedas thegoalofperfectiontobereached.5

In the Middle Ages, humanity’s position in the hierarchy of Being wasconsidered to liebetween thephenomenalworldand the“noumenal”one,andwas likened to a bridge connecting the two.6 Humanity was pontifex (Lat.“bridge-maker”) byvirtue of the operationof the “faculty” known as Intellect(Lat. Intellectus, “perception” or “comprehension”) which makes known thatwhichbelongstoanessentialrealm.Whenthisrealmisconsideredtobedistinctfromtheworld, it isnatural torepresent theIntellectassuperior toor“above”the reason, “closer” to the transcendenceofDivinity.But alternatively, fromaperspective that acknowledges immanence, the Intellect may be conceived aslyingbetweenthesensesandreason,unveilingdivinequalitiesinnaturebypre-empting the rational mode of consciousness. In this traditional metaphysics,then,theIntellectallowstwothings:atranscendenceoftherationalordiscursivemind,andthroughthisanIntellectiveintuitionofthe“underlying”substanceoressenceofnature.Byvirtue of being the link or bridge between earth and heaven, the human

being“bearsresponsibilitytoboththeDivinePrincipleandtonatureandisnotfreetodowiththecreatedworldsimplywhathewills.”Rather,freedomcanbe“realized fully only inwardly by reaching theDivineRealm,which is infiniteand beyond all constraint.”7 By contrast, a secular philosophy applied to theworld is no guarantee of ecologically sound practice, probably because itsusuallymaterialistviewworksagainstanymotivationtowardssuchpractice.AsNasrexplains:

Paradoxically,thosewhohavedeniedthatmanhasanymodeofexistencebeyondthatoftheearthhavehelpedtoturnthepowerfulforceswithinthesoulsolelytowardstheearthresultinginitsdegradation.Menhavecometoseek theInfinite inour finiteearthlyhomewithdevastatingconsequencesforthathome.Thefactthattraditionallymanwasseenasabeingmadeforthespiritualrealm,butlivinginthisworld,servedtoemphasizethesacredqualityofnatureandman’sresponsibilitytowardsit.Thereductionofmanto a merely terrestrial being with merely earthly needs and desires, butearthlyneedsanddesireswithoutlimits,cannotbutleadtothedestructionoftheterrestrialenvironmentitself.8

Ecophilosophy can hardly be unaware of the paradox at the heart of anenvironmental ideology. Certainly, it is precisely because modern science isneutral about how one should respond ethically to its worldview thatecophilosophyhassoughtanideologythatmightaffectbehaviour.Accordingly,ithasbeenobligedtotakeintoaccountthephilosophiesandreligionswhichdoapparentlyinfluencehumanbehaviour—examining,forinstance,thepracticesofTaoism,Buddhism,andHinduism.9Butinturninghence,whatdowefind?Thatthefundamentalconcernisforawakeningordevelopingtheveryfacultywithinourselvesofwhichscienceisignorant,butwhichisbelievedtodefineforusourhumanity,ourdifference,andallowustoappreciatethesacrednessofthenaturalworld, thusdivertingattentionfromtheprimacyof thematerial.Sincemodernscience is at a disadvantage when talking about non-material aspects and thefacultythatrelatestothesethings,itmightbeexpectedthatitwouldbedeemeddeficient, and religion correspondingly valued.Yet ecophilosophy, now relianton theprinciples that underpin an ecological understanding,must acquiesce tocertain “inarguable facts” such as modern cosmogony and cosmology, or thetransformationofspeciesthroughnaturalselection.Hence,onlythoseaspectsofreligiousbeliefthataresuitablyambiguoustowardsthisscientificknowledgearepermitted a precarious foothold, while in the background hovers science’sjudgement that these things have their basis in the psyche, which is itselfultimatelytiedtothematerialrealm.

“TRANSPERSONALECOLOGY”

Theconceptionwenowhaveofpsychestemsfromabeliefintheillusorynatureofthehigherelement, theIntellect.Thepsyche,nowanautonomous,localizedentity (oftencorrelatedwith thebrain), isdeemednot tohave thecapacity foranyreal connectionwith thatwhich liesbeyond its small sphere; its ability to“transcend” itself and “connect”with the environment around it being termed“identification,”aprocesslimitedbyimaginationandempathy.It isnowusual toconsidersomeformof identificationorcommunicationas

anobviouscorollaryto theecocentricposition.10However, therestrictedviewof the psyche—the nature and potential of which is effectively a two-dimensionalparodyofthetraditionalviewofthehumanbeing—isreflectedinareadiness by some ecophilosophers to reconceive the traditional view of Self-realization (the replacement, or subsuming, of the “self” by the “Self”) as amatter of identification. Arne Naess, the originator of the “deep” ecological

approachtoenvironmentalism,11beginswiththepronouncementthatallbeingsshould be permitted to self-realize—that is, realize their full potential.12 Forhumanity, the termmeans an invitation to expand the sense of self to includenatureasawhole.ForFox,whoappliedtheterm“transpersonalecology”tothisprocess, self-realization becomes “a this-worldly realization of as expansive asenseofselfaspossible.”13Heisolatesthreedifferenttypesofidentification,14oneofwhich,asmentionedearlier, relieson themodernscientificnarrativeofthe“creation”andevolutionof theuniverse. Ina sense it is apersuasion that,faced with the modern account of science that demonstrates the inextricableconnectionofallthings,weshouldfeelarelationshiptoeverything.Notonlyarewe composed of star stuff, but the cycling of virtually indestructible atomsthroughouttheplanetalsomeansthatweallcontainthousandsoftheatomsthatpreviously went to make up any historical personage we care to imagine, or,indeedanyotherbeingatall.15Now, given the concerns of environmentalism, which focus on the

preservation of the natural world, deep ecology’s suggestion might seem toanswer well. Yet the foremost concern of philosophy per se should be toascertain the truth, not to serve a particular doctrine. The world does notobviouslydemandidentification,and,deprivedofthisrequest,wehavenomorethan a decision to accept the promptings of an ecological understanding andclaim identification as a laudatory act.More importantly, in this regard, if thenature of humanity is not defined completely by modern psychology, or theworldbyecology,thentheurgingofhumanityinthedirectionsuggestedwillbeinconflictwithnature,notinharmonywithit.The Self-realization that is a familiar theme in traditional metaphysics is a

lessening,evendissolvingoftheself,tobereplacedbyaSelfwhichinnowayconsists of an individuated consciousness, but is rather thewithdrawal of thatconsciousnessinfavouroftheexpressionofaUnity.Muchsacredliterature(asweshallseeinpartfour)makesthisclear.Forexample,theprocessisdescribedinahadithqudsithus:“WhenIlovehim,IamtheHearingwherewithhehearethandtheSightwherewithheseethandtheHandwherewithhegraspethandtheFootwhereonhewalketh.”16Regardlessofthisprofound“psychology,”andtosuit the particular purposes of environmentalism, deep ecology is apparentlyadvocating the expansion of the sense of individual selfhood, a very differentthing. Isolated from a metaphysical framework that describes and guides theprocessoftransformation,thismightwellbeaprescriptionforeitherdelusionor

disaster. Identificationbecomesverymuch like the attempt to swallow the searatherthanbepartofit.Ina“this-worldly”expansionofself,itishardnottoseeanexpansionratherthandiminishmentoftheego.Ecocentrism,althoughitmaybeequatedwithethics,isforemostadescriptive

termderived fromecological information.Promptedby ecological insightswemay think of ourselves as “one knot in the biospherical web,” but thisconceptualization does not in itself offer any great insight into appropriatebehaviour. Deep ecology suggests a supporting non-prescriptive “ethics” ofidentification, so that “care flows naturally.”17 But, in practice, identificationwould not allow any of the destruction essential to live.18 Removeidentification,aswemusttobepractical,andwehavetofallbackondecisions.Andherewereachaturningpoint,foridentificationandethicalconsiderationsin general are subtle ideas that belong in the first place to an area of realitybeyond the scope ofmodern science. Their origin is consciousness itself, andseemingly only our own—no other species demonstrates consideration for theongoingworkingoftheecosphere.Itisbyvirtueofourconsciousnessthatideaslike “ethical considerability” and “intrinsic value” have their existence. And,significantly, it is through our consciousness that knowledge of how Gaiaoperatesandwhatitsaimsare,exists.ItiswewhodecidetopreservetheGaianecosystem,andwewhothendecideonamanagementstrategy.Givenouruniquestanding in this regard, ecocentrism is impossible in any practical sense.Realistically,wecanhardlyplaceourselvesotherthanintheroleofmanagersor,better,guardiansofthesystemofwhichweareaware.Wealwayshaveneededto make the decisions of stewardship, and there seems no choice—especiallynow that our adverse impact has become so apparent—but to continue in thisvein.Inthisrespect,theonlyrelevantquestionishowtobewisestewards.Tobewiseintheoriginalsenseofsophiawouldbetounderstandthenatureof

natureand,especially,ourownnature.Theecocentrismofecophilosophysubtlyunderminesthefoundationsofthehumanquahumanbysuggestingthathumannature has no bearing onmoral considerability. The empiricism of ecology islinked to a non-empirical axiological system to create a new paradigm.Fundamentally, this is tomakeaprescription foraparticularmodeof thought,thendismissasirrelevantanythingthatdoesnotfallintothatpatternofthought,even though itmight be true, andmight be a reason for altering that thought.Unwittingly, ecophilosophy, through recourse to the scientific disciplines ofecologyandpsychology,hasforestalledanyfurtherconsiderationofthehuman

being as standing apart from theworld, or our need to stand apart to be trulyhuman.A basic tenet of ecocentrism is thatwe should not deny the rights ofotherspecies tobe trulywhat theyare—Naess’sphilosophy is foundedon thisbelief. Logically, then, we should apply this principle to ourselves, and bewillingtocarryNaess’spolicyofasking“deeper”questions19intothearenaofmetaphysics.

ORIGINSOFTHEENVIRONMENTMOVEMENT

It is no coincidence that the “worship of nature” began at a time whenChristianityinEuropewasindecline.20Infact,theRomanticMovementofthelateeighteenthandearlynineteenthcenturiescanbepartiallydefinedbyjustthisturning away from a centuries-long preoccupationwith “another”world and are-orientation towards “this” one. In the shift of focus, the world of naturesuddenly appeared very differently. The historian Kenneth Clark, quotingThomas Gray, identifies the beginning of the change in sentiment: “Not aprecipice,notatorrent,notacliff,butispregnantwithreligionandpoetry.”21Sobegananattractionordevotiontothemajesty,thebeauty,thesublimityandthe sacredness of nature, expressed in painting, poetry and prose.22 In 1798,Wordsworthcouldwriteofhisyouthfulexperience:

FornaturethenTomewasallinall.—IcannotpaintWhatthenIwas.ThesoundingcataractHauntedmelikeapassion:thetallrock,Themountain,andthedeepandgloomywood,Theircoloursandtheirforms,werethentomeAnappetite;afeelingandalove,Thathadnoneedofaremotercharm,Bythoughtsupplied,noranyinterestUnborrowedfromtheeye.23

Theconvictionexpressedhere,thataprofoundqualityresideswithinnatureandthatitsunveilingoccursthroughapre-rationalmodeofconsciousness,istypicalof theRomantic temperament.ForColeridge, this inneressence far transcendswhat is normally perceived or believed to be there, and its deep intuition

correspondswiththeabeyanceofordinarythought:

Odreadandsilentmount!Igazeduponthee,Tillthou,stillpresenttothebodilysense,Didstvanishfrommythought:entrancedinprayerIworshippedtheInvisiblealone.24

Rousseau, aloneupon the shoreof“his” islandonLakeBienne,describesasimilarexperiencewhereabsorptioninnatureinducesthecessationofthesenseofindividualidentity:

Ilikedthentogoandsitontheshingleinsomesecludedspotbytheedgeof the lake; there thenoise of thewaves and themovement of thewater,taking hold of my senses and driving all other agitation from my soul,wouldplungeitintoadeliciousreverieinwhichnightoftenstoleuponmeunawares. The ebb and flow of the water, its continuous yet undulatingnoise,keptlappingagainstmyearsandmyeyes,takingtheplaceofalltheinward movements which my reverie had calmed within me, and it wasenough tomakemepleasurablyawareofmyexistence,without troublingmyselfwiththought.25

In these experiences, we have the distilled essence of today’s environmentmovement: the natural world is the embodiment of a significance that farsurpassesitsouterform;at thesametime,itmysteriouslyharboursameansoftranscending thenarrowconfines of the individuated consciousness.Seen as aresponse to the goodness, beauty, andmeaning in nature, “Romanticism” hasalwaysbeenwithus;itsseeminglydramatichistoricalappearanceisafunctionofitsantitheticalstatus:inanageofreasonandscience,itattractsourattentionaswouldabrightflowerinadesert.As the Enlightenment faltered, the conception of a transcendent Divinity

which had occupied post-Renaissance Europe—the remote, but almost humanCreator, the “father in heaven” Michelangelo had painted26 —began to bereplaced for some by a renewed subtlety of perception; a departure from thehumanist stance—whereman, “themeasure of all things,” had defined natureand God in terms of his own conceptions—towards a witnessing of realitieswithin nature that vastly transcend such conceptions, and are testimony to thevalidity of direct experience. The beautiful and the sacred were found to be

immanent,a“discovery”thathasitsprolongationintheperspectiveidentifiedinpartone.Theassociatedwordsublime27describedthataspectofnaturewiththepower to effect a change in ordinary consciousness.Naturemust always defyhumanism,howeverheroic;against thepowerandmajestyofnature theself isdiminished,andthismaybecomethepreludetothedissolutionoftherational,oregoic, consciousness, and the emergence of another mode of consciousnessresponsiblefortheperceptionofadeeperbeauty.Two reasons for the change in outlook regarding naturemay be identified:

modernscienceitself,andtheintroductionofanEasternmysticism.Clearly,thecatalyst which produced a reaction as potent as the decline of one form ofreligion and the consequent redirecting of human consciousness, must besingular. Indeed, the scientific revolution, that in only two hundred years hadboth instilled a mechanistic view of the world and been responsible for avigorous new age of the machine, had severely eroded the conventionalconceptionofGod’screationassomethingtoberevered.Bythebeginningofthenineteenth century, Wordsworth could write, “I now affirm of Nature and ofTruth...thattheirDivinityRevolts,offendedatthewaysofmen.”28Thespiritthat rallies to the perceived oppression of people under the tyranny of themachine is the sameone that responds to the subjugationofnature itself.Andtheadversetreatmentofbothmuststemfromamachine-likementality:

ForBaconandNewton,sheath’dindismalsteel,theirterrorshangLikeironscourgesoverAlbion:ReasoningslikevastSerpentsInfoldaroundmylimbs,bruisingmyminutearticulations.IturnmyeyestotheSchools&UniversitiesofEuropeAndtherebeholdtheLoomofLockewhoseWoofragesdire,Wash’dbytheWater-wheelsofNewton:blacktheclothInheavywreathesfoldsovereverynation:cruelWorksOfmanyWheelsIview,wheelwithoutwheel,withcogstyrannicMovingbycompulsioneachother,notasthoseinEden,which,WheelwithinWheel,infreedomrevolveinharmony&peace.29

Blake’sEden reminds us of a nature free of the strictures ofEnlightenmentscience,andofthe“paradise”ofanalternativeperceptionofnaturethatexistedpriortothisnewthought.Blake,though,wasnotpointinginthedirectionofanalready enfeebled exoterism, but to an earlier age still cognizant of the inner

dimensionofreligion;towardsthatstateofconsciousnesscapableofdiscerningthe error of rationalism andmaterialism, andwhere theywould lead. It is nosmallironythattheeventualinheritors(inthetwentiethcentury)ofthisfirst—and ultimately unsuccessful—defence of naturewould initially be prepared tooverlookthedecisiveroleofthescientificmentalityintheenvironmentalcrisis,andinsteadattackthatwhich,forBlake,heldaremedyforthespreadingmaladyofthis“scientism.”In“TheHistoricalRootsofOurEcologicalCrisis,”30LynnWhite rounded upon the already recognized adversary of modern science—religion—delivering a putative coup de grace. Drawing attention to variousbiblicalpassages (and, itmustbesaid, ignoringothers)Whitebelievedhehadidentifiedkeyinducementstoapatternofthoughtthathadmotivatedaharmfulresponsetonatureforupwardsoftwothousandyears.AsNashobserves,“thisexposureoftheshortcomingsofWesternreligioustradition...[was]takenforgrantedbyenvironmentalistsafterthe1960s.”31ThevalidityofWhite’s thesishasbeenchallengedmanytimessinceitsfirst

publication, often by apologists who claim that it is always possible to readscripture more sympathetically. However, it cannot be seriously denied thatalmostfromthebeginninginChristianitytherewerecorruptionsoftheoriginalteachingthatcameaboutduetoits impactwithtemporalpowers.32Norcanitbe denied that this “weakness” provided an opening for the development of asecularscience,eventhough,asNasrpointsout,this“paradigm...wascreatedfrom many strands during the Renaissance, the 17th century and the Age ofEnlightenment, often in opposition to Christianity whose teachings on naturebecameevermoreeclipsedandmarginalized.”33Notwithstanding the above, White’s thesis remains spurious because it

encourages an exoteric understanding of religion. By creating for us anassociation between the written word and the consequences of applying itstraightforwardly to theworld,White gives us an imagewhichwe inevitablyprojectuponthepast,thusblindingourselvestothecleardistinctionthatshouldbe made between the way scripture may be interpreted and the way it wasinterpreted.ToreasonasWhitedoesistoinferthattheconsciousnessofthepastwas sufficiently like thepresent so that scripturewouldhavebeenalwaysandeverywhere interpreted in the same way.34 It is to propagate a view whichcannotbuthideforusareligion’sesotericside.Clearly,theinterpretationofanywritten material will mainly depend on the preconceptions, beliefs and

perspectives that formtheWeltanschauungof the times.While“dominion”(oranysimilarterm)wouldmeanonethingtoaculturewhichbelievestheworldtobe mechanistic, to a culture that already saw the world in terms of sacredpresence,itwouldmeansomethingelseentirely.Sensitivitytothisdistinctionisvital.Thefact thatJudaismorChristianity iscapableofbeingread in thewayWhite reads it, implicates not religion as such but rather the decline of anesotericelementwhichinturnledtothemoderniststateofmind—theplatformfrom which White now speaks. If modernist ears are sensitive to the biblicalterms and phrases that suggest control, it may be because they are no longersensitive to thedeeperdimensionof religion.The failure to find in scriptureaclearly stipulated environmental ethic of the sort we now ask for can just aseasily suggest that this missing ingredient was once too well understood towarrantenunciation.Fortraditionalists,thedeclineinquestionamountstoanincreasinginabilityto

distinguish between two modes of consciousness, the rational and theIntellective. Effectively this means that over time there are fewer and fewerindividualswithinareligioustraditionwho,byvirtueoftheinnerdimensionofconsciousness,areresponsivetotheinnerdimensionoftheworld.ThecourseofChristianitybearswitness to this, theearlycenturiesstanding insomecontrastwithwhatChristianitywouldlaterbecome.For the first Christians, and many of the Church fathers, the teachings of

Christ contained a complete message pertaining to “inner” knowledge,summarized in his affirmation that “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.”Expressed in parable and symbol this knowledge was recognized to becompatiblewiththemetaphysicalinheritancefromtheGreekworld.35Thus,StDionysius theAreopagite forgeda linkbetweenChristianity andPlato,36whospokeofthesamepotentialitiesofhumanconsciousnessandthesamespiritualunderpinningtotheworldtowhichthatconsciousnesswasopen.FollowingChrist’s death therewere, for the evangelists, inevitable political

exigencies todealwith in theirencounterwithothercultures.37Consequently,theirwritingscontainamixtureof theprofoundand themundane; thePaulinelettersilluminatebothaconsciousnessintouchwithdeeperrealities,andamindattemptingtoconfrontthetemporalpoweroftheGreekandRomanworld.LaterChristianwritersofmysticalbent—moreorlessremovedfromworldlyaffairs—equallywellunderstoodandexpressedtheIntellectiveconsciousnessandthemystical quality of the world. They include the saints, Thomas, Irenaeus,

Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Isaac of Nineveh,andMaximustheConfessor.38After an authoritarian Roman Empire absorbed Christianity in the fourth

century,intellectualslikeAugustinedevelopedfromPlatoandtheneo-Platonistsan elaborate doctrine compatible with scripture. But over time, Plato’s andPlotinus’ original sense of nous (the Greek term corresponding to Intellectus)became hazy. The incorporation of Aristotelian thought into medievalScholasticism39 meant an increasingly rational doctrine. In the thirteenthcentury,ThomasAquinascouldstilljudgethat“ifGod’sessenceistobeseenatall, it must be that the intellect sees it through the divine essence itself.”40However, the attempt by the rational faculty to provide a fixed and coherentrational basis for belief meant the marginalization, and eventual eclipse, ofIntellective consciousness. Esoterism resists being institutionalized within adogma.Nor can it bewholly captured or objectified by discursive thought orreasoning;“Theletterkilleth,butthespiritgivethlife,”StPaulhadsaid.41Asabridge, the Intellect—which, above all, defines esoterism—exists as the onlypathwaytotheindwellingSpiritinbothnatureand“in”ourconsciousness.TheChurch,asavehicleforpreservingChrist’steaching,mayofferscripture,sacredritual,andothersacredformssuchasartandarchitecture,42tosupportorbeareminderofthisotherknowing.Butwhenthesethingsaretakentoexistinandfor themselves, a definite bifurcation ensues, and the esoteric dimension,althoughneverabsent, isno longerrecognized.Withinanevermoreconfiningframeworkoforthodoxy, theearly teachings,andlaterones like thoseofSaintFrancis43orMeisterEckhart,wereincreasinglymisunderstoodasunorthodoxorevenheretical.After the centuries following Aquinas, then, during which time an outer

carapace of rationalism closed over and concealed the inner essence ofChristianity,thesuddenarrival,intheeighteenthcentury,oftranslatedscripturaltexts from the East—especially India—represented nothing less than theirruptionoftheundisguisedesotericdoctrineintotheEuropeanconsciousness.44“Hinduism,” it is recognized, never encountered the need to conceal the innerteaching of religion—something almost mandatory in the West to counterchargesofheresyandapersecutionwroughtbytherigidandliteral-minded.45

TheVedas,Upanishads,andBhagavadGita46revealedtotheGerman,French,

and English poets and philosophers of the nineteenth century the relationshipbetween the consciousness of the perceiver and the world that is perceived.“Whatcannotbe thoughtwith themind,but thatwhereby themindcan think:KnowthatalonetobeBrahman,theSpirit,”saystheKenaUpanishad.47And,in the Isa Upanishad, we are told: “The Spirit . . . is incorporeal andinvulnerable, pure and untouchedby evil.He is the supreme seer and thinker,immanentandtranscendent.”48ThesescripturesalsorevealedtherelationshipoftheDivinity to theworld. In theKathaUpanishad, it is said of the SupremeSpirit,“Inspaceheisthesun,andheisthewindandthesky....Hedwellsinmenandingods,inrighteousnessandinthevastheavens.Heisintheearthandthewatersandintherocksofthemountains.”49In one burst of light from the East, a world that had been darkened and

drained of life and soul by modern science was renewed and sanctified by avisionofGodwithin.AsJ.J.Clarkehassaid,

the Hinduism of the Upanishads offered an exalted metaphysical systemwhich resonated with [the Romantic philosophers’] . . . own idealistassumptions, and which provided a counterblast to the materialistic andmechanistic philosophy that had come to dominate the Enlightenmentperiod.50

Far from being a lifeless mechanical contrivance wound like a clock at thebeginningoftime(asithadcometobeviewedbythescienceofIsaacNewton’sday)orevenalivingcreationbroughtforthexnihiloby theCreator, theworldwas affirmed as a manifestation of Divinity. In the Bhagavad Gita,51 itsessentialonenessisrevealedtoArjuna:

Iamthesoul...whichdwellsintheheartofallthings.Iamthebeginning,themiddle,andtheendofall that lives. . . . Iamthebeautyofall thingsbeautiful....Know...thatIamtheseedofallthingsthatare;andthatnobeingthatmovesormovesnotcaneverbewithoutme....Knowthatwithone single fraction ofmyBeing I pervade and support theUniverse, andknowthatIAM.52

Unsurprisingly, themostaffectedwere thoseofpoeticsensibility.Yet,whilethe German Romantics—notably Schelling, Goethe, and Schopenhauer—were

profoundlymovedbythe“music”oftheOrient, theirinfluenceintheEnglish-speakingworldhas remained limited. Instead,we find that thechord struck intheheartsandmindsoftheEnglishRomanticpoetsiswhatreverberatestoday:

ToseeaWorldinaGrainofSandAndaHeaveninaWildFlowerHoldInfinityinthepalmofyourhandAndEternityinanhour.53

AndIhavefeltApresencethatdisturbsmewiththejoyOfelevatedthoughts;asensesublimeOfsomethingfarmoredeeplyinterfused,Whosedwellingisthelightofsettingsuns,andtheroundoceanandthelivingair,Andthebluesky,andinthemindofman:Amotionandaspirit,thatimpelsAllthinkingthings,allobjectsofallthought,Androllsthroughallthings.54

The idea of the presence of the Spirit in nature and in humanity created aclearly distinct and alternative avenue of thought from the one science wastaking. Those who subsequently encountered this new path, including theAmerican transcendentalists Emerson, Whitman, and, especially, Thoreau55(whose classic, Walden, is now recognized as a significant influence inenvironmental thought), Spinoza, Schopenhauer, and, more latterly, T.S. EliotandW.B.Yeats,haveallespousedaphilosophythatisdeeplymistrustfulofthedirection of modernWestern thought. Carl Jung, on encountering the Easterntradition,was evenmoved towonderwhether allWestern knowledgewas notjustabstraction.56

METAPHYSICS

Indian metaphysics stands as counterpoint to modernist thought because itaffirms the “faculty” of perception adequate to the realizing of the nature ofnature,while relegating reason to a secondaryposition. “Beyond the senses isthemind,andbeyondthemindisreason,itsessence.BeyondreasonistheSpirit

inman,” (Skt.Buddhi, Intellect) says theKathaUpanishad.57 In contrast, byassuming the absence of just this dimension to ontology—as Enlightenmentphilosophersdid—anartificialdiscontinuitybetweenthemind(perception)andnature (the perceived)was established.The two are now sustained as separatethings, so that, rather than engagement with nature, there is study of it.Moreover, this objectification of nature through the use of reason acts tomaintain the duality; while “knower” and “known” persist, identity is notpossible.ReasonandthesensesprovetobepoorcollaboratorsinfindingTruth.Naturecomestoseemmoreandmoreelusive,andwhatatfirstseemedobjectiverealitybeginstolookmorelikeaconstructoftheminditself.Hence,bythetimeKant suspected the limitations of reason, and declared that the true nature ofnature could not be known, the Western philosopher had become as a manconfirmed in the practice of swimming, who claims that the other shore of ariver isunreachablebecausehecanno longersee thebridge thatspans it.ThefateofphilosophyhasbeentoremainspellboundbyKant’svieweversince.Thediscoveriesofscience—eventhescienceofthetwentiethcentury—weretakentoconfirmthefinalityofthisview.Theassumptionthatthereisnostate,orformofconsciousness, thatdefinitelysubsumestheapparentdualityofobserverandobserved, has meant an entrenched dualism. It is no help, existentially, ifquantumphysicsdescribesaninteractiverelationshipbetweenmindandworld,or even postulates a ground of existence that subsumes the two, for theconceptualization of such a process or state, itself confirms the separation ofpsycheandworld.To identify Divinity within nature is to re-establish a non-material (that is,

non-measurable)essencetonature.Natureis thenmorethanouter,ormaterial,formbecause it iscomposedofqualities thatbelong to the reality that isGod.Onewaytointerpretthisinsightwouldbepantheistically:nature,beingthesumofthosequalities,iswhattheDivineis.Alternatively,thepanentheisticoutlook—thatnatureisGodbutdoesnotexhaustwhatGodis—reversestheimage:nownature, in Schuon’s words, “is mysteriously plunged in God.”58 Thepanentheistic outlook—the only legitimate one from the traditionalist point ofview—impliesseveralthings.BecausenatureincludesmanyoftheattributesofGod,areductionistapproachtonature,whichusesempiricismandreasoningtoremovemanyofthesequalities,cannotresultinfindingoutwhatnature(orGod)is,andis thereforeinappropriate.59Instead,aholisticapproach,whichseeksameans bywhich all the attributes of naturemay be known, is essential.Now,

sinceweareapartofnature—immersed in theBeingofGod—aclue towhattheseattributesareisprovidedbyourownconsciousness.Anultimategroundofbeingmustsubsumetheapparentdistinctionbetweenourconsciousnessandan“outerworld”ofnature—ofperceiver andperceived.60 It is ourperceptionofqualities, precisely, that indicates their objectivity. If a consciousness that hasbeautyasitsperceptionispartofagreaterwhole,thenbeautysuggestsitselftobe no less a part of thatwhole.Beauty is in nature only because it cannot beanywhereelse.Weknowthatperceptionsofbeautyvary.Buttoacknowledgethisisonlyto

acknowledge the relative persistence of an illusory duality, wherein anunderstandingofbeauty(oranyquality)indepthmustremainlimited.Bridgingthegapbetweenthetwo“realities”—theselfandtheSelf—istobridgethegapbetweenalimitedperceptionofbeautyanditsfullreality.Crucially,ifGodandGod’sattributesare“in”theworld,thentheaspirationsoftheselftotranscenditslimitedview,realizethestateofnon-duality,andsobecomeawareofallthatbeautyis,neednotbeaimedwhollytowardsatranscendentreality,butmaybehelpedbyrecoursetothe“naturalworld.”TorecognizethattheEasternviewofimmanenceisnotuniquebutisjustthe

clear exposition of a doctrine at the heart of all religions, is to see that whatWhite had struck at was really only an outer shell formed by centuries ofhumanistic thought and scientific rationalism.SinceBlake’s day, themarch ofsciencehastendedtofurtherobscurethetruedimensionsofreligion,whileatthesame time lendingcredence to the legitimacyof science.ThedeepmisgivingsBlake had for the overall benefit of science and for the ethos of science havelargelydissipated.Becauseofthis,thechasmthatactuallyseparatesreligionandscienceappearslesswideandevenbridgeable.IntheChristianWest,whichhasborn the full brunt of science’s impact, we find that the Church—failing todefend a dimension no longer apprehended61 —has slowly acquiesced toscienceandseenthenecessityofmodifyingitsdoctrinetosuit“unquestionable”truth.62 Thus, the Church’s position today often reflects some version ofTeilhardism.63Here,thetraditionalmetaphysicsacceptedbytheChurchupuntilthe Renaissance (wherein the ultimate origin of outer manifestation is a pre-existingessenceorarchetype), isabandoned in favourof thespeculationsofamodern mind (Darwin), uniquely—and surprisingly—favoured by God tocomprehendHisrealmannerofworking.Science,foritspart,whenitiswillingto approach religion, does so onlywith itsmode of thinking, andwielding its

ownterminology.Thus,inthepresentday,FritjofCapra,seeminglywithoutanysense of irony, confidently assesses Eastern religious traditions dating backthousands of years in the light of the latest physics and believes there areparallelstobemade.64Boththeseapproachesobscurethefactthatthefundamentalnatureofreligion

isnotbeingtrulyrepresented,andmaketoomuchofarelativelyrecentmodeofthought,orconsciousness,peculiar tomodernscience.Thefundamentalnatureofreligionissuggestedbytheworditself.IntheLatinreligio(fromreligare,to“bind back”), we have reference to the element capable of re-establishing aconnectionbetweenourownconsciousnessandamorecomprehensivereality.ItistheIntellectorIntellectivefaculty—onceorthodoxy—thatfulfilstheessentialfunctionofreligion.However,intheglareofmodernscienceithasbecomepartof an invisible esoteric dimension.Having first reduced theworld tomaterialand psychic components, and more latterly to the material alone,65 sciencecannot recognize this other, vertical, dimension. Implacably pressured, as itwere,toremain“reasonable”and“objective”—toinfactalignourselveswithaparticularmodeof consciousness—there is little chance to see that thismode,validwithin its own sphere,might be justly suspectwhen it shines its light atreligion and pronounces: “nothing found.” Yet the traditional perspective (nolessvalidsimplybecausesciencerepudiatesit),whichpositsanalternativemodeof consciousness, stands always ready to be vindicated by contemplating theveryqualitythatcannotbetackledbyscience—beauty.

THEPERCEPTIONOFBEAUTY

Enclosedwithinthesphereofscientisticthought,theremaybefewertimesthanoncetherewere,whenthemystery,miracle,andbeautyoftheworldimpinges,andallowsinsightinto“another”nature.Butthereareoccasions.Towakeintheearlyhoursand,asthedarknessslowlyfades,tobedrawnintothesongofbirdsgreeting the dawn, their melodies rising and falling; to stand under theunfathomable and still canopy of night awash with stars, and then turn toglimpse the full and silent moon edge over nearby hills; to experience thepiercing light of a thunderstorm alive upon the glowing backdrop of cloudswhile theroaringwindisheardbutnotyetfelt.Acascadingstreaminaforestglade;theunexpectedscentofasinglerose,breathedin;thewhitefoamingsurfcollapsingforeveronalonelyshore—eventssuchasthesearewithoutnumber.Theymovethesoulinwaysthatchallengetheoutlookoftherationalisticmode

ofconsciousness.Theyevokethesensethatthebeautifulandthesacreddonotjustreflectawayofperceivingbutarequalitiesthatbelongtonature.Crucially,since it is a pre-rational and contemplative mind that first becomes aware ofbeauty,itisonlythesamemindthatwillendorsethisperspective.Inanalysis,inreasoning, in discursive thought,much of the substance of beauty disappears.Underthescrutinyofscience,beautybecomesadisembodiedentity,destinedtohaunt the landscape of our mind as a ghostly remnant of its true self, eitherexistingtenuouslyinthe“eyeofthebeholder,”or,worse,notseenatall.Rational consciousness is not perceptive; rather it interprets sensory data.

Onlyaconsciousness that isnon-discriminatory, impartial andpassivewhen itcomestothatwhichthesensesbringtoit—thatevaluatesholisticallysotospeak—couldrightlybetermedperceptive.Thus,beautyisgivenbacklifeonlywhenthe pre-rational intuitive consciousness is granted legitimacy as a faculty ofperception.Inthisregard,itmustbeseenasofthehighestsignificancethatthetraditionalunderstandingofhumanknowingincludedafacultyadequate to theperceptionofthesubtleraspectsoftheworld.Ifweweretolookforaremnantexpression of this faculty “beneath” the nowdominant rational consciousness,wewouldsurelyfixupontheperceptionofbeauty.Thesubtlebutprofoundandindubitable character of this perception (before it has been subjected to thepronouncements of reason) seems to confirm the reality of the Intellect. Byvirtue of these linkages, beauty’s reality is upheld and the common threaduniting environmentalism and religion is made more evident. Beauty’sinextricableassociationwithreligionmakesuncompromisingthedistinctionthatisoftenmadebetweenscienceandreligion.Theattempttobringtogetherwhatare, at root, two ways of seeing, is not possible without either drasticallyweakeningreligionormakingmoreclaimsforsciencethancanbesubstantiated.The question that beauty poses for ecophilosophy is whether it will resist themomentumithasgainedfromamaterialisticscienceandmoveinsteadtorealignitselfwithatraditionofsophiathatisadequatetoanunderstandingofthenatureof nature. Only by studying the key philosophical developments that shapedmodernscienceandledtothedemiseofthesophia inWesterncivilizationandthedemiseofbeauty,dowebegintoappreciatewhatthischoiceinvolves.

FOOTNOTES

1JacobBronowski,TheAscentofMan(London:BBC,1976),pp.19-20.Alltheresearch intoanimalbehaviour in the last threedecadeshasnot fundamentally

changedthisreality.2BertrandRussell,respondingtowhatsciencehadrevealed,couldevenexpressa moral superiority to the Universe: “In the world we know, there are manythings thatwouldbebetterotherwise,and the ideals towhichwedoandmustadherearenotrealizedintherealmofmatter”(BertrandRussell,“AFreeMan’sWorship,”inWhyIAmNotAChristian[NewYork:SimonandSchuster,1957],p.16).3SeeAlbertSchweitzer,MyLifeandThought(London:Unwin,1966).4TotakejusttheexampleofHinduism,aswellasincorporatingtheideaoftheDivinityasimmanent,theYogicethicsofYamaandNiyamacarrytheidealsofAhimsa, and Aparigraha—that is, non-violence whenever possible, and theminimizationofmaterialpossessions. In this regard JohnChryssavgis remindsus that “the present ecological crisis is a result precisely of our action—ofconsiderablehumaneffortandsuccessto‘change’or‘better’theworld—andnotonly of our greed or covetousness. The primary cause of our devastation anddestruction is the relentless pursuit of what many people consider a good ordesirable thing—namely, the modern, industrial-technological model ofdevelopment” (John Chryssavgis, “The World of the Icon and Creation,” inSeeingGodEverywhere,p.263).5S.H.Nasr,“ManandNature:QuestforRenewedUnderstanding,”p.8.6 Interestingly, and ironically for ecophilosophy, our position in thehierarchy,and the hierarchy in general,was not conducive to hubris. Forwhilewemayhavebeen“bold”enoughtoconjecturethatweexpressedsomethingmoreinthewayofperceptionandconsciousnessthantheplantsandanimalsaroundus,wedidnotclaimforourselvesapreeminenceofthesortoftenmadebyscience.Theascending ladder of creation continued on above us into “angelic” realms ofbeing. Thismeant a psyche held in check and often a reverence for Earth ascreation. In contrast, it can be argued that humanism and the discoveries ofscienceactuallyelevatedhumanity’sstatus,andthatego-consciousness,havingbecome preeminent, promoted a hubristic belief in “man” as lord of creation,withthesanctiontotreatnature—nolongersacred—ashewilled.7Nasr,“ManandNature:QuestforRenewedUnderstanding,”p.8.8Nasr,“ManandNature:QuestforRenewedUnderstanding,”p.9.9See,forexample,forHinduism:L.Gupta,“Purity,PollutionandHinduism,”inEcofeminismandtheSacred,ed.C.J.Adams(NewYork:Continuum,1993),

pp. 99-116; K.A. Jacobsen, “The Institutionalization of the Ethics of ‘Non-Injury’ towardall ‘Beings’ inAncient India,”EnvironmentalEthics 16 (1994):pp.287-302;andE.Deutsch,“AMetaphysicalGroundingforNatureReverence:East-West,”EnvironmentalEthics 8 (1986): pp. 293-299. ForTaoism seeR.T.Ames,“TaoismandtheNatureofNature,”EnvironmentalEthics8 (1986):pp.317-350;C-Y.Cheng,“OntheEnvironmentalEthicsof theTaoandtheCh’i,”EnvironmentalEthics8(1986):pp.351-370;andP.Marshall,Nature’sWeb:AnExploration of Ecological Thinking (London: Simon & Schuster, 1992). ForBuddhism see K.K. Inada, “Environmental Problematics in the BuddhistContext,” Philosophy East and West 37 (1987): pp. 135-149; P. Billimoria,“IndianReligiousTraditions,”inSpiritoftheEnvironment:Religion,ValueandEnvironmentalConcern,eds.D.E.CooperandJ.A.Palmer(London:Routledge,1998), pp. 1-14; and P. de Silva, Environmental Philosophy and Ethics inBuddhism(London:Macmillan,1998).10Forinstance,FreyaMathews’panpsychistview,whichascribes“a‘psychist’ormentalistic dimension to allmatter, or to the physical realm generally . . .renders [theworld] an arena notmerely for causality but for communication”(FreyaMathews,ReinhabitingReality:TowardsaRecoveryofCulture[Albany:SUNY,2005],p.14).11Naess,whosephilosophyischaracterizedbytheattempttouncoverandthenpromote the most profound reasons for why the environment should beprotected, utilized the terms “identification” and “self-realization” in severalpapers. See, for example, Arne Naess, “Identification as a Source of DeepEcologicalAttitudes,”inDeepEcology,ed.MichaelTobias (SanDiego:AvantBooks, 1995), pp. 256-70; and, “Self-Realization:An EcologicalApproach toBeingintheWorld,”TheTrumpeter4(3)(1987):pp.35-42.12InNaess’snormativesystem,“EcosophyT,”thefoundationofdeepecology,hisfirstnormis“Self-realization!”andhissecond,“Self-realizationforalllivingbeings!”(NaessquotedinFox,TowardaTranspersonalEcology,p.103).13WarwickFox,“TheMeaningsofDeepEcology,”Island35(1988):p.34.14 They are the “personal,” “ontological,” and “cosmological” bases ofidentification.SeeFox,TowardaTranspersonalEcology,p.249.15AnobservationmadebyBillBrysoninAShortHistoryofNearlyEverything(London:Doubleday,2003),p.120.16Bukhari,Riqaq, 37; quoted inMartin Lings,A Sufi Saint of the Twentieth

Century(Cambridge:TheIslamicTextsSociety,1993),p.37.17 Naess writes: “Care flows naturally if the self is widened so that theprotectionoffreenatureisfeltandconceivedasprotectionofourselves”(NaessquotedinFox,“TheMeaningsofDeepEcology,”p.34).18 Both introspection and experience shows that the cutting of trees, thedestructionofsoil lifeinordertogrowfood,andmanyotheractivitiesdependondeliberatelynotidentifyingwithlife.19The “deep”ofdeep ecologyderives fromNaess’s injunction to always ask“progressivelydeeperquestionsabout theecologicalrelationshipsofwhichweareapart”(Fox,TowardaTranspersonalEcology,p.92).20KennethClark’saccountofthecollapseofreligiousfaithanditsresurrectionas the spirit within Romanticism remains one of the most perceptive. SeeKennethClark,Civilisation(London:BBC,1969),chapter11.21Clark,Civilisation,p.271.22ThemajorwritersinEnglandweretheLakePoets,andBlake,Scott,Byron,andShelley;inFrance:Rousseau,Lamartine,Hugo,andChateaubriand;andinGermany,theSchlegelbrothers,Novalis,andJeanPaulRichter.23WilliamWordsworth,“LinesComposedAFewMilesAboveTinternAbbey”(1798).24SamuelTaylorColeridge,“HymnBeforeSun-rise,intheValeofChamouni”(1802).25Jean-JacquesRousseau,Reveriesof theSolitaryWalker, trans.PeterFrance(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1979),pp.86-87.26PhilipSherrard refers to the “tendencywithin the post-mediaevalChristianworld to look upon creation as the artifact of a Maker who as it were hasproduceditfromwithout.ThishasprovideduswithapictureofaGodinheavenwho,havingsetthecosmicprocessinmotionandhavingleftittorunmoreorlessonitsownandaccordingtoitsownlaws,nowinterferesdirectlyonbutrareoccasions....TheresultisthattherelationbetweenGodandcreationtendstobe seen predominantly as one of cause and effect: God is a world cause, asupremeorfirstcauseorprincipleofbeing;andtheworldanditslawsarewhatHehasproduced”(PhilipSherrard,“TheDesanctificationofNature,”inSeeingGodEverywhere,p.110).27 The word was first used by Longinus in about 200 CE.On the Sublime,

translated into English in 1712, was just one book that helped to define the“new”outlook.EdmundBurke, inAPhilosophicalEnquiry into theOriginsofourIdeasoftheSublimeandBeautiful,definedthesublimeintermsofnature’soverwhelmingpower.28WilliamWordsworth,“TheExcursion”(1814)I,983-985.29WilliamBlake, “AVisionofAlbion,” inJerusalem: TheEmanation of theGiantAlbion(1820).30LynnWhiteJr.,“TheHistoricalRootsofOurEcologicalCrisis,”inWesternMan and Environmental Ethics: Attitudes TowardNature and Technology, ed.IanG.Barbour(Reading,Massachusetts:Adison-Wesley,1973),pp.18-30.31RoderickNash, “AldoLeopold’s IntellectualHeritage,” inCompanion toASandCountyAlmanac,p.70.32ForSherrard,whenChristianity“becamethereligionofacivilizationitwasforcedtoincorporateRomanandevencommonlawintoitsstructure. . . .Thishasmeant that ithasalwaysbeenmoreeasy todetach . . . thepolitical, socialand economic sphere of human life from the framework of the Christianrevelationand so to leave it exposed todominationbypurely secular interestsandinfluences”(Sherrard,“TheDesanctificationofNature,”pp.121-122).33Nasr,“ManandNature:QuestforRenewedUnderstanding,”p.7.34 Wendell Berry makes the same point when he says that to read andunderstandtheBible“entails...themakingofveryprecisedistinctionsbetweenbiblical instruction and the behaviour of those peoples supposed to have beenbiblically instructed” (Wendell Berry, “Christianity and the Survival ofCreation,”inSeeingGodEverywhere,p.54).35Thecompatibilityoftheesotericteachingsofanyofthegreatmetaphysicaltraditions is accepted by traditionalist authors, whose writings endeavour toreveal the parallels. See, for example, Frithjof Schuon’s classic work TheTranscendent Unity of Religions (Wheaton, Illinois: Quest Books, 1984), andWhitallPerry’sATreasuryofTraditionalWisdom(Cambridge:QuintaEssentia,1991).36 See On the Divine Names and The Mystical Theology, trans. C.E. Rolt(London:SocietyforPromotingChristianKnowledge,1920-1940).37Totakeoneexample,anearlycontroversyhingeduponwhethertheGentileconvertscouldbeexemptfromtraditionalMosaicLaw(suchascircumcision,or

the ban on the eating of pork) but still achieve equal status with the Jewishconverts. See Henry Chadwick,TheEarly Church (Harmondsworth: Penguin,1990).Paul,cognizantofthewaytheesotericteachingsofChristhadattemptedtocut throughsuchouterdetail,had to remainmindfulof those forwhomthedeeper truth was opaque. A controversy such as this one, well represents theinevitableandendlessclashbetweentheexoteristandtheesoterist.38TheGospel ofStThomas is aCopticmanuscript of the fourth centuryCEfromEgypt,probablyadaptedfromanearlierGreekwork.StIrenaeus(130-202)wasatheologianandBishopofLyon.Clement(150?-220?),aGreektheologian,flourished in Alexandria as head of the catechetical school. Athanasius (293?-373) was Patriarch of Alexandria. St Gregory (325-389) was Archbishop ofConstantinople. St Isaac, mentioned in the Philokalia, flourished in the sixthcentury,andStMaximus(580-662),atheologian,wasabbotofChrysopolis.39 Chief among the Scholastics were Albert the Great (1200-1280), ThomasAquinas(1225-74),Bonaventura(1221-74),andDunsScotus(1264-1308).40Aquinas,SummaContraGentiles,III.li.412Corinthians,3:6.42 Among medieval cathedrals, for example, Chartres may be counted asupreme crystallization of the subtleties of Western Christianity. See TitusBurckhardt, Chartres and the Birth of the Cathedral (Ipswich: GolgonoozaPress,1995).43ThelifeofStFrancis(1182?-1226)epitomizestherespectandreverencefornaturethatresultsfromthevisionofGodwithin.ItisrecognizedbyWhiteasapreeminentexampleofawisestewardship.SeeWhite,“TheHistoricalRootsofourEcologicalCrisis.”44Onecan speakof the esoteric doctrinebecause the esoteric is the commonessence of all religions. Hence, the Indian texts, although first and foremostintroducingthedoctrineof theVedanta to theWest,actuallyservedtodiscloseinner meaning in the Christian writings, now largely forgotten. Oldmeadow,commenting on Friedrich Schlegel’s adoption of Catholicism, says, “[an]immersioninEasternthoughtandspirituality[isoften]followedbyareturntoone’sownreligioustradition”(HarryOldmeadow,JourneysEast[Bloomington:WorldWisdom,2004],p.21).45MartinLingswrites:“theAdvaitaVedantahas theadvantage, shownby itsaltogetherdirectmannerofexpression,ofneverhavinghad to speak inveiled

terms in order to avoid a conflict with the limitations of exoterism” (MartinLings,TheEleventhHour[Cambridge:QuintaEssentia,1987],p.79).46 TheVedas are the oldest sacredwritings, and comprise TheRig-Veda, theYajur-Veda, the Sama-Veda, and the Atharva-Veda. The Upanishads,philosophical treatises, were composed between 400BCE and 1500CE. TheBhagavadGita,c.500BCE,formspartoftheIndianepictheMahabharata.47 JuanMascaró, trans.,TheUpanishads (Harmondsworth:Penguin,1975),p.51.48Mascaró,TheUpanishads,p.4949Mascaró,TheUpanishads,p.6350 J.J. Clarke, Oriental Enlightenment: The Encounter between Asian andWesternThought(London:Routledge,1997),p.61.51 This text, first translated into English in 1785 by Charles Wilkins, wasfamiliartoBlake.52TheBhagavadGita, trans. JuanMascaró (Harmondsworth:Penguin,1975),pp.85-88.Unlessotherwisenoted,allsubsequentcitationsarefromthistext.53WilliamBlake,“AuguriesofInnocence”(1803).54Wordsworth,“LinesComposedAFewMilesAboveTinternAbbey.”55TheinfluenceofanEasternmetaphysicaltraditionisapparentinEmerson’s“Brahma”and“Hamatreya”;inWhitman’s“LeavesofGrass”;andinThoreau’sWalden.56 C.G. Jung, “The Dreamlike World of India,” in Collected Works Vol. 10(London:Routledge,1969),p.518.57Mascaró,TheUpanishads,p.65.58 Frithjof Schuon, “Apercus sur la Tradition des Indiens de l’Amerique duNord,”EtudesTraditionnelles(Paris:Chacornac,1949),p.164.59TheChristianconceptofcreationexnihilo ledtowhatisalmostaclichéinphysics:Godassuprememathematician.Oncemathematicswasconceivedofasadescriptionoftheobjectivetruthofthings—theinnatestructureofnature—itimplied that the creative element of God’s mind must take the form ofmathematical propositions. Entertained by Newton, Einstein, and some morerecentphysicists,itisperpetuatedtodaybyHawking,althoughina“tongue-in-cheek”way—mathematicshaslongsincebecometranscendent itself,not tobe

contradicted even by “God.” For a discussion of these ideas, see the chapter“TheFetishofMathematicsandtheIconoclasmofModernScience,” inPhilipSherrard,Human Image: World Image (Ipswich, England: Golgonooza Press,1992).60This,aswewillsee in thenextpart, issimilar to,butnot thesameas,oneinterpretationofquantumphysics.61 Ananda Coomaraswamy writes: “[Christianity’s] intellectual aspects havebeensubmerged,andithasbecomeacodeofethicsratherthanadoctrinefromwhichallotherapplicationscanandshouldbederived;hardlytwoconsecutivesentences of some of Meister Eckhart’s sermons would be intelligible to anaveragemoderncongregation,whichdoesnotexpectdoctrine,andonlyexpectstobetoldhowtobehave”(CoomaraswamyquotedinBrianKeeble,“AnandaK.Coomaraswamy:ScholaroftheSpirit,”SophiaVol.2,No.1[1996]:p.82).62 PaulVI, responding to one of themoon landings (perhaps the preeminentachievementofsciencetodate)manages,inonetellingstatement,toexpressananti-traditional humanism and scientific hubris: “Honour to Man, honour tothought,honourtoscience,honourtotechnique,honourtowork,honourtotheboldnessofman,honourto thesynthesisofscientificandorganizingabilityofman who unlike other animals, knows how to give his spirit and his manualdexterity these instrumentsofconquest.Honour toman,kingof theearth,andtoday Prince of heaven” (Paul VI,Doct. Cath. No. 1580, January 21, 1971,quoted in Rama Coomaraswamy, The Destruction of the Christian Tradition[London:PerennialBooks,1981],p.95).63SeePierreTeilharddeChardin,TheFutureofMan(London:Collins,1973).Teilhard combines theChristian religionwith evolutionary theory to posit thecontinuingemergenceovertimeofmoresubtlelevelsofconsciousness.Fromatraditional perspective, the “evolution” of consciousness for a person is analways-existingpotential takingplace inanon-temporaldimension.Thedesiretoreconcilereligionandsciencegenerallyinvolves,saysSherrard,“anattemptto adapt the principles of religion—transcendent and immutable—to the latestfindingsofscience,andsotomakereligion‘reasonable’orinkeepingwiththe‘spiritoftheage’byappearing‘scientific’”(Sherrard,“TheDesanctificationofNature,”pp.119-20).64SeeFritjofCapra,TheTaoofPhysics(London:Fontana,1983).Mostofthesuggestedsimilaritiesarespurious,however,aschapter6shouldmakeclear.

65Thepsychic,whetherconceivedofas independentof itsphysicalmatrixornot,isneverthelessindividualandsubjective.

PartThree

THROUGHAGLASSDARKLY

CHAPTERFIVE

Reductionism

Wheneverwetracetheoriginoftheparticularspiritthatismodernscience,itisnot uncommon to look towards those individuals in the classicalGreekworldengaged in speculation about what underlies the world of appearance—philosopherslikeThales,Anaximander,andDemocritus,whosetheories,absentfromtheEuropeanconsciousnessforcenturies,werebroughttolightduringtheRenaissance. The word underlie is significant because it points to anembarkation,overtwothousandyearsago,uponasingularimaginativeventure,and the abandonment of a more holistic outlook—that of the philosophicalgiants,SocratesandPlato.Itistofirstconceive,andeventuallyputintopractice,thebasicprinciplethattheprocessoflooking“within,”bydividing,analyzing,reducing,andmeasuringtheperceptiveworldthroughtheapplicationofreasonandmathematics,islegitimateinthequestforsubstanceoressenceinnature.Becausethereductionisttheoriesoftheseearlyphilosophersremainedlargely

speculative, theywere not a challenge for thosewho also looked towards theworld,butwhosemoreexpansivevisionledinan“upward”direction.Thefirsttentative steps towardswhat todaywemight term anon-religious viewof thenatureoftheessenceorsubstanceoftheworldreliedondeductivereasoningand“self evident” knowledge rather than experiment. Consequently, the firstattempts to uncover underlying structure are viewed today as the naiveblunderingofthosewhohavenottherequisitelighttoshinewhereitisneeded.Theirformof“science”seemsapoormatchtothepowerofinductivereasoningbasedsolelyonrecoursetosensorydata,whichdevelopedfullyinthescientificrevolutionoftheseventeenthcentury.Theprocessofreduction,boththeoreticalandpractical,wouldnothavebeen

successful beyond a certain point without the tool of mathematics, and onceagain theoriginof theapplicationof this to theworldmaybe found inGreekthought.Thecuriousandcompelling relationshipbetweenourperceptions, theworld,andmathematicshasbeenanenduringone,and,withthedevelopmentofmodern science, it became an ineluctable one. Although reductionist thoughtwouldeventuallyleadmathematicselsewhere,itsinitialassociationwithbeautywas strong.For example,Pythagoras showed that themusicalnoteswhicharethought to sound harmonious or beautiful together were correlatable (on astringedinstrument)withanexactmathematicalsequence.Whengeometry—an

artificialmathematical world of form in one, two, or three dimensions—wasinventedandpromotedbyPythagoras,Euclidandothers,beautywasabstractedfrom theperceptiveworld into this other oneby the “discovery” that pleasingproportions in art and architecture were at least partially quantifiable—forexample in the “golden section” (orphi, a ratio of 1:1.618).1Theadoptionofmeasure—the comparing of the natural world with an artificial one—began acenturies-longbeliefthattheworldwassomehowdescribableinthelanguageofmathematics.Containedwithinthebeliefinasensoryworldthatcanbetakenapart,laythe

dormantseedofaparticulardualitysettodominateeveryaspectofwhatwouldbecomemodernthought.Becauseif,inourencounterwiththeworld,thereisnotanexperienced correlationbetweenperceptionand thatwhich isperceived;nolonger the experience thatour nature and theworld’s nature are actually onlydifferentaspectsofthesamething,thenabifurcationresults.Thereoriginates,inthe analytical mode of awareness, the conception that there is a thing, “theworld” or the observed, and an entity that is different from it: an observer.Following on from this duality is the conviction thatwhat is being found outabout theworld is not influenced by the particular consciousness that is beingbroughttobear,butis,instead,acorrectdescriptionoftheworld.Although the Greek mind did not make the radical distinction between

observer and observed that we do, or confuse the mental construct with thereality2,wecanneverthelesssaythatitsuseofmeasurestartedtheprocessthatwouldleadtothisstateofextremeduality.Wemaylocateinthisearlythoughttheprecursor toourmode of science, the basic premises ofwhich are, firstly,thatsubstanceistobefoundthroughreductionism—thatis,throughareasonedanalysisandmeasuringofthematerialworld;and,secondly,thatthereasoningprocessallowsafaithfuldescriptionofrealitybecauseitoperatesindependentlyof theworld.Despite recent developments,modern science still imagines thatthe essential nature of what exists is to be found through an investigation byreduction,usinganempiricalmethodandmathematicalanalysis.Eitherthroughimaginativespeculationorinapracticalwayonlydreamtoftwothousandyearsago, we take nature apart to find smaller and more elementary components.Indeed,reductionismhascometoseemtheonlymeansbywhichknowledgeofsubstanceoressencecanbehad.Havinginvestedsomuchfaithinreductionistthought, we find ourselves unable to conceive of an alternative.We extol theearly manifestations of this approach, and tend to marginalize thought which

seemsatoddswith it.Thus, aprominentphilosopherof the twentiethcentury,Bertrand Russell, could confidently oppose the definite knowledge of sciencewiththedogmaoftheology.3ForRussell,“self-evident”knowledgebelongedtothe latter, and its origin was the brain of the philosopher. In consequence,“traditional religiousbeliefs . . .arefelt toneed justification,andaremodifiedwhereverscienceseemstomakethisimperative.”4Permitting scientific method to have such decisive influence is, for Lord

Northbourne,

to consign to the waste-paper basket, metaphorically or otherwise, thewhole of the ‘perennial philosophy’ that is enshrined in the sacredScriptures of the world, all the exposition and exemplification of thatphilosophygivenbythesaintsandsageswhomtheworldhasreveredfromtime immemorial, all religion, all tradition, in short, all that has hithertogivenmeaningtohumanlife.5

The dimension of “height” (in both the perceptive world and in perceptionitself ), to which the perennial philosophy—or sophia—attests, defies thesimplifying categories of Russell. As the very antithesis of reductionism,reductionist thought cannot be applied to the vertical dimension without thedangerthatitwillbelosttoanymeaningfulunderstanding.IfPlatohasnotthesame associationwith science (although he influenced theway sciencewoulddevelop because of his “search for perfect timeless mathematical forms thatunderlaythephenomenalworld”6), it isbecauseheacceptedthatthestructureof realitymeantacorrespondencebetweenournatureand thatof theworld;agreaterunderstandingoftheworldrequiringonlyagreaterengagementwithournature.Thesuprasensory,transcendent,essential,orverticaldimensiontorealitywasnotopentoinvestigationusinganalyticalreason,butwasknownbymeansof the “faculty” of perception, originating prior to reason, that partook of thenatureofthistranscendence—thenous(Intellect).Significantly, the movement in science towards a fully inductive empirical

systemcorrespondstoasteadydeclinebytheexpositorsofsuchasysteminthebelieforacceptanceofthealternativemeansofknowing.WhilePlato’sdoctrinewas kept alive within certain schools in the Christian West throughoutsubsequent centuries (from Neo-Platonism and the early Scholastics, to thetraditionalistsoftoday),thosewhodrovescienceforwardintheseventeenthand

eighteenth centuries became increasingly suspicious of this alternative asrepresenting anything other than a delusionary way of thinking.7 Naturalphilosophers, often having a close affiliation with the Church, retained, inprinciple,access to theesoteric teachingsvia theChurch’sfoundingfathers.Inreality, however, a general understanding of this esoteric dimension was instrong decline after the Renaissance, which drew more from the secularhumanistic side ofGreek thought than from the “theological” or esoteric side.Moreover, the critical confrontation between scientific endeavour and theChurchat the timeofGalileomeant that thechanceforavaluable interchangewaseffectivelyended.ThisledeventuallytoanoutrightrejectionoftherealityoftheIntellect.Inrelationtoourowntimes,itissignificantthataconsciousnessthathasbeen

“trained,”asitwere,inthewaysofthescientificmethod,andhaslearnttoviewit as the only valid one, would be biased when faced with the suggestion ofanotherwayofknowing.Itsconditionwouldnowbesuchastodismissorfailtoappreciate an alternative, only because to it the alternative is not there. Thispredisposition is indeed part of the scientific worldview, and has worked topreventa re-assimilationof the ideaof theexistenceofamorecomprehensiveknowledge,onenotalliedtothereductivemethod,butgainedbywayofaddingtoorunveilingtheinitialsensoryimpressionsthroughtheoperationofasubtlerperception. Thus Plato, in asserting the True, Good and Beautiful—realitiesapprehensible by this more subtle perception—is admired for imaginativegenius,butno longer for accuracyof thought.And, to compoundan injustice,since Plato frequently framed metaphysical concepts in a “non-theological”language,termssuchas“idea”and“form”(Gr.eidos)weremoreopentobeingadaptedandmanipulatedbyasecularscience.The reductionist method of science cannot be called subtle. Inherent is a

confining quality that consciously restricts the boundary of the acceptable.Today,many of the popularizers of science hold so strongly to the convictionthat theirmethodworks, that it revealswhat is true, and that there isnoothermethod, they are sometimes openly hostile towards the suggestion of analternative.8 This serves to reinforce the legitimacy of the reductive methodamongst thosewhopracticescience,and tohold the layperson,who isusuallynot familiar with the epistemological assumptions and uncertainties inherentwithinscience,inthrall.Withintheclosedhousethatisscience,eventhelightofhistoryisallowedtopenetrateonlydimly.TheIntellect,nolongerthoughtofas

“perception,”livesonincorruptedform,asasubtletyofordinarythinking.Therationalmindhasnotonlysuccessfullyusurpedthethronebutnowclaimsthatitwasalwayssovereign.InthewordsofhistorianRichardTarnas,

having extracted whatever was useful for its present needs, the modernmind reconceived classical culture in terms respectful of its literary andhumanistic accomplishments, while generally dismissing the ancients’cosmology, epistemology, and metaphysics as naive and scientificallyerroneous.9

LANDMARKSINANEW“METAPHYSICS”

Charting the development of the current assumptions of modern science andexposingtheirdetrimentaloutcomesisacommonthemeinthewritingsofbothecophilosophers and traditionalists.The difference between the two lies in theextent of the criticismmeted out.Aswehave seen, ecophilosophers aremorelikelytosympathizewithsomeofthefindingsofscientificempiricismbecausethey provide a platform for their outlook. Traditionalists, mindful of all thatremainslostduetotheinfluenceexertedbyscience,arelessaccommodating.Bylookinginsomedetailattheoriginsofourpresentworldview,thissectionoffersa chance to understand such criticism by bringing into relief the distinctionbetween the two modes of approach to essence which science and religionexpress.Ifwetakemetaphysicstoconsistofthreeaspects—cosmology,ontology,and

epistemology—then the figures of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), GalileoGalilei (1564-1642) andRenéDescartes (1596-1650) stand as clear landmarksthat signal three drastic changes in course that would steer us towards themodernistoutlook.These threemenprovided theessential elements foranewvisionofreality.Whiletherewerethosewhoopposedthenewdirectiontaken,10those who supported it were the more persuasive and the legacy of theirendeavours is the particular sea in which we now travel. In a search for theoriginofbeauty,itisimportanttomentallyretracethiscourseifweareevertodiscernthenatureoftheharbourfromwhichwehavesailed.Beautyiswovenofthevery fabric of an earliermetaphysics in that far off place, and its rich andcolourful threads have beenmade pale and thin by travel. In abandoning thatdistant shore, in our determination to explore an uncharted territory, we havebecome mesmerised by a vast and lonely seascape. We no longer accurately

rememberwhywe once viewed theworld thewaywe did, orwhatwe couldknowwithoutvoyagingatall.Welive,asPhilipSherrardsays,inan“industrialandtechnologicalinferno,”anightmarishworldofourownmaking,contenttocriticizetheknowledgeofthepastdespite“ourfalltoalevelofignoranceandstupiditythatthreatensthesurvivalofourrace.”11

COSMOLOGY

ThebasicfactsofCopernicus’heliocentricsystemarewellknown.Butitisnotalwaysrememberedthatthesystemwasinitiallyadvancedmoreinthemannerof a theory,12 and, at first, sat relatively comfortably with the Church as anabstractandmathematicaldescriptionoftheheavens.Slowlygainingcredibilitywithintheuniversitiesandamongst themorescientificallymindedof thetime,however,meantthatitsdefenceastruthwasinevitable.Theclashbetween the “fatherofmodern science” and theCatholicChurch,

uponthepublicationofDialogueontheTwoChiefWorldSystems in1632,hasoftenbeen enunciated,with the censureof theChurch and theglorificationofGalileo’s courageous, if doomed, stance against it in mind. This might beunsurprising from the defenders ofmodern science. But an official “apology”fromtheVaticanin199213confirmstheInquisition’s trialasamistake,and—more significantly—suggests that the opposition to Galileo’s assertions wasalwaysindefensible.What, if anything, might be said in defence of the Church’s initial stance?

Granted,manyofthereasonsforholdingitmayhavebeenpoliticallymotivated.ButifwediscountthelikelihoodthatGalileo’streatmentcamemainlyasaresultof the continuedCounterReformation strategy to rein in “heretical” ideas thatwould add to the already existing threats to the established position of theChurch,14cantherebeextractedamorelegitimate,ifmoresubtle,reasonfortheoppositiontoGalileo’sgeokineticsystem?Onedoesnotlightlycriticizetheimaginativeinsightthatsawtheusetowhich

inventioncouldbeputtoconfirmtheconclusionsofCopernicus.Galileotrainedhis own telescopes on planetary bodies like Jupiter, and discovered unknownworldsrevolvingthere,provingthattherearesomethingsthatdonotgoroundtheearth.HenotedthatVenusshowedphases,indicatingthatitwentroundthesun,andthatbodieslikethemoonarenotperfectspheresbutactuallybetraythesame irregularities as the earthly realm. It is indeed to be abhorred that in the

face of such revelations came the threat of torture. Considering that thecontrastinggeocentricsystemofPtolemy—apagan idea itself—hadoncebeenadoptedbytheChurch,couldnotthenewideashavebeenallowedalsowithoutmuchdamage?Wefeelthatreligiondoesitselfadisservicewheneverideasaredefendedsovehemently.Itseemstobespeakafoolishfundamentalismatoddswithagenuinelywisehandlingofbothestablishedreligiousprinciplesandnewfindings. We now defend Galileo who was definitely right, and believe theChurch was defending what was definitely wrong. Yet to posit the question,“Wasitwronginallways?”istoembarkuponapathleadingtothepossibilityofsynthesiswherethereseemsatfirstonlyirreconcilabledifference.Bywayofstartingonthatpathitmightbesaidthatfromaphenomenological

point of view (and, curiously, an empirical one) the observable facts do notsupportanearththatmoves.Eventheeffectofhundredsofyearsofknowingtheheliocentricsystemmakes littledifference.To the“untrained”eye thesunstillrisesandsets, theearthappearsat rest.Forvirtuallyallpracticalpurposes, theheliocentric systemdoesnot seem tocount in theworldofexperience; itdoesnotseemtrue.Indeed,theskythatturnsaroundus—especiallythenightsky—hasexisted in thehuman imaginationasaperfect,unchanging,spiritual realmbecausethatishowitpresentsitself.Itssacrednaturereliedonitsbeingsetapartfromtheworldweinhabit.Inwhateverwaythisworldmightbethoughtsubjectto decay and corruption or gross in substance, the world above, unreachable,showed evidence of the never-changing, sacred and eternal aspect of reality.Hence, it became variously the abode of the gods or a peoples’ ancestors, theseveralheavensor,inGreekmythologyorChristiancosmology,the“crystallinespheres”whichsurroundourearthlyhomeandarewheredivineFormsorformsof theDivine rest.The journeyofahumansoulbeautifullyunfolds inDante’sDivineComedywithinthismatrix.Yet,todwellupontheliteralherewouldbetomisswhatisrelevant.Foronly

inanappreciationofsymbolisseenthetrueimportanceofthetraditionalview.Thegeocentricsystem,asanintellectualconstructparallelingtheobservationalevidence, meant that the world above us provided an initial image which,embellishedbyimagination,operatedtoprovideasymbolforthehierarchicalorvertical dimension understood to exist in the realm of the human soul. Thewithdrawal of just this symbolmeant thewithdrawal of a dynamic that couldlendwings to the imagination. Inadvancing the idea that theearthandplanetsorbit the sun, Copernicus was complicit in removing from the Europeanconsciousnesssymbolicsupportforaverticaldimensioninthehumansphere.It

is the journey of Dante’s protagonist that is significant, because it classicallyrepresentsthehierarchyofstatestowhichthehumanbeingmightaspire.Ifthisinnerverticalityisnotrecognized—andincreasingly,assciencemoved

forward, it was not—the tragic quality of the imposition of the heliocentricsystemhardlyregisters.Yet,ifitisrecognized,thentheremovalofthatimaginalsupport,seentoweakenawarenessofthatdimension,becomessignificant.Thisisnotatallthesamethingaslamentingtheweakeningofaviewthatismerelyincorrect.All cosmologies, including the modern one, might be said to support a

particularviewofourselves,aparticularhumanimage.Thedifferencebetweenmoderncivilizationandallothers is that itdeclines toallow thatacosmologycouldbeanythingbutanattempttodescribeanempiricalreality.IntheemergentWest,CharlesLeGaiEatonsays,

It was assumed by people who had completely lost the capacity foranalogicalandsymbolicthinkingthatthemyths...weremeanttobetakenquiteliterallyandrepresentednomorethanthefirstgropingsoftherationalanimaltowardsascientificexplanationoftheuniverse.15

Yet,thisdoesnotrepresenttheworkingofthepre-scientificmind.Instead,inallculturesprior toourown, theverticaldimension—anexperiential realmnoless significant than the realm of the outer senses—found expression inparticularcosmologies,whether thoseof theprimalpeoples like theAustralianAborigines or American Indians, the Oriental religions, or the finely-wroughtcosmologiesofClassicalIslamandtheChristianMiddleAges.The“correctness”ofthegeocentricsystemthen,couldbeseeninitssymbolic

suitability.Theoutwardlyobservedstructureoftheworldwasinharmonywithaninnerstructure;therefore,theouterworldofthesensescouldbeusedtodirecttheconsciousnesstowardswhatisnotclearlyseenbyallowingittorepresenttheinnerdimension.Hence,itisnotthecosmologyitselfthatisthesignificantthingorthatmightneedtobedefended,butratherthatwhichitsupportsanddefines.IntheIslamicworld,incontrastwithwhathappenedintheChristianone,this

innerhierarchicaldimensionremaineduppermostintheawarenessofthosewhoconductedthescienceofthetimes.Moreover,asNasrexplains,

aslongas...scientiacontinuedtobecultivatedinthebosomofsapientia,a certain “limitation” in the physical domain was accepted in order to

preserve thefreedomofexpansionandrealization in thespiritualdomain.The wall of the cosmos was preserved, in order to guard the symbolicmeaningwhichsuchawalled-invisionofthecosmospresentedtomostofmankind.16

While heliocentrism remained only a theory, however credible, it could notsupplant the old cosmology. The danger lay rather in the promulgation of theCopernicansystemastheonlytruth,forthatwouldnecessitatetheabandonmentof that cosmology. Whether the Christian clergy were aware of all theimplicationsofGalileo’sstancebeingadopted,inthewaythatNasrsuggeststheIslamicscholarswere,mayneverbeknown.Butitisnowamatterofhistoricalfactthatoncethenewsystemwasinplace17itdidremove,fromthecollectiveimagination of theWest, a cosmologywhich allowed the humanmind to findsymbolsforhigherornon-rationalstates,andthevisionofthemanifestationinnature of another, non-material realm. And there is an element of the doublytragicsincethislossofvisioncamewiththebreachofthenewsciencewiththeChurch and, by extension, all religion. For the Church, the forcefulness ofProtestantism seemed to suggest the horns of a dilemma, the path of escapebeing either oneway towards science or the other towards literalism.Lackingopportunityorinsightmeantafailureto“takethebullbythehorns”andescapebythemiddleway.Ironically,religioncouldfromthenonbepaintedintermsofoppositiontotruth.Therepercussionswouldextendintotheareaofphilosophy,and so colour ecophilosophy too, which can least afford to reject that whichmight help to confront the ecological crisis. But the middle way—that ofallowingtheoldtosubsumethenewinasynthesisthatrecognizesbothfactandsymbol—isapathstillopentous.Thecrucialpointhereisthatthe“facts”ofmoderncosmologyremainnotjust

unnecessary, but can even be a hindrance to an encounterwith the essence ofrealityasithasbeenunderstoodthroughouthistoryupuntilmoderntimes.Oldperceptionsaredenied,andthehumangazeisturned“outward”or“downward”totheworldof“matter.”Theheavensareapparentlynotperfectorunchanging.Theydonothave theformof“crystallinespheres.”Alongwith theearth, theyalso are “corrupted” in the imagination—that is, subject to change and decay.Being of the same nature as the earth, they also are open to empiricalinvestigation.Thetelescopeisatypical toolforthis,revealingfurtherdetailofouter form by magnifying the capacity of ordinary vision. Yet, while suchinstrumentsmayrevealmorethingsthatarebeautiful, theydonotincreaseour

capacitytoperceivebeauty.Theycannotbeasubstituteforan“inwardvision,”which responds to the things of ordinary sensory experience and discovers,within them, the levels ofmeaning that Leopold spoke of.On the contrary, aconcentration on finding out more of the outward reality—a “horizontal” or“two-dimensional” awareness—can act to divert attention from a need forinwardperception,whichisthatofseeinginthedeeperor“vertical”sense.

ONTOLOGY

If Galileo had been responsible just for championing Copernicus’ newdescription of the heavens, hemight have remained guilty only of helping toremoveoneof the imaginative constructs that supported thephilosophyof theMiddle Ages. Moreover, since the reality to which an imaginative constructrefers should be more resilient than the construct, it is likely it would haveaccommodated the new world system over time. A synthesis, in which bothworld systemsareacceptedasvalid from theirownpointofview,mighthavebeentheoutcome.However,atrendinmodernsciencefarmoreblameworthy—because of the direction in which it pushed European consciousness—had itsoriginsinGalileo’sownthought,andwastofurtherunderminetheconceptionoftheverticaldimensioninwayslesssubtle.Copernicushaddemonstrated thepowerofmathematics to revealwhatwas

not apparent.Galileo had ascertained that the celestial realmwas no differentfromtheearthlyone.Mathematicspromised,therefore,tobeasuitabletoolforrevealinghiddenrealitiesintheworldaroundus.Hence,itseemedappropriate—in order to do science in the way Galileo wanted—to remove thosefundamentalqualitiesofnaturewhichcouldnotbequantifiedfromthepurviewofscience.Now,initiallytheremayhavebeenacertainnobilityinthisthinking.Plato,afterall,hadbelievedthatmathematicalpatternscouldbedistinguishedinthecelestialrealm.However,forPlatothenatureofthisrealmwasverydifferentanditsperfectionwasnotinquestion.Sinceitwasindicativeofanuminousordivine level of being, mathematics by association could be consideredcorrespondingly rarefied. With the destruction of this realm, mathematicsbecame dissociated from its links to amysticalworld—the vertical dimensionrelating to both the inner human world and the imaginal outer celestial one,consideredtobereflectionsofeachother—andassociatedinsteadwithagrossormaterialrealm.Galileo’sprocedure,whichwerecognizetodayasthescientificmethod—that

is,experimentationcombiningobservationwithmathematics—wastoseparate

thosequalitieswhichcouldbequantified(primaryqualities) from thosewhichcouldnot(secondaryqualities).“Philosophy,”saidGalileo,

iswritteninthatgreatbookwhicheverliesbeforeyoureyes;butwecannotunderstanditifwedonotfirstlearnthelanguageandcharactersinwhichitiswritten.This language ismathematics, and the characters are triangles,circles,andothergeometricalfigures.18

Hearguedthat

tomakeaccuratejudgementsconcerningnature,scientistsshouldconsideronly precisely measurable “objective” qualities (size, shape, number,weight,motion),whilemerelyperceptiblequalities...shouldbeignoredassubjectiveandephemeral.19

Consequently,asthepsychologistR.D.Laingonceobserved,

Outgosight,sound, taste, touchandsmellandalongwiththemhassincegone aesthetics and ethical sensibility, values, quality, form; all feelings,motives, intentions, soul, consciousness, spirit.Experience as such is castoutoftherealmofscientificdiscourse.20

Superficially, Galileo’s categorization may seem to echo the Scholasticsmateriaprimaandmateriasecunda.But inGalileoeverything is turnedon itshead, so that what is normally considered secondary substance has beenpromotedinimportance,whileessentialqualityhasbeenrelegatedtoanalmostirrelevant lower level. Galileo’s method more clearly than ever narrowed thefocusofthesearchforessencetoapitifullysmallrange.Henceforth,itwastobefoundonlywithintheconfinesofthequantifiableandtheanalyzable.Now, the idea of analysis of both space and time into units that can be

measured leads, in the fields of mechanical engineering and kinematics (thesubject of Galileo’s Two New Sciences published in 1638), to some usefulknowledgeconcerningwhatcouldbebuiltornotusingcertainspecificationsinmaterials,themotionsoffallingbodiesandprojectiles,themotionofpendulumsandsoon.But thenotionthat thisapproachshouldbetheonlylegitimateone,andthatunlessthestudyisquantifiableitdoesnotleadtocertainknowledge,isacuriousonetohold,andmustberegardedasmistakeninthesensethatbeing

sorestrictiveitcouldnothopetorevealallofthenatureofthings.Thisissofortwo reasons. Firstly, as the physicistDavidBohmonce pointed out, “the veryword‘measure’...[denotes]mainlyaprocessofcomparisonofsomethingwithanexternalstandard.”21Inotherwords,whenweassignmathematicallabelstoan object—magnitude, shape, number, and position—the object can only betalkedaboutinthiswaybecausewehaveanotherobject—aruleofsomesort,ayardstick,anaccuratetimepiece—whichwecanapplytoit.Weareactuallyonlycomparing the first thingwith the graduations on ameasuring instrument.AsRené Guénon has perceptively noted, “despite certain prevalent misuses ofordinary language,quantity isnever really thatwhich ismeasured, it ison thecontrary that by which things are measured.”22 Time itself, which is rarelyexperienced asuniform in flow,23mustalsobeconverted toa spatial thing inorder for it to bemeasured, andGalileo’s discoveryof the isochronismof thependulumenabledjustsuchacorrelation.Withoutthetoolsofmeasurement,weareunabletoapplythemathematicsofreductiontonatureinthefirstplace.Theillusion that mathematics somehow explains what nature is, or that timepossesses a regularity akin to geometry, or that nature possesses any of theprecisionor regularityofmathematics,disappearsagain.Weare leftwherewestarted—facetofaceasitwerewiththewhole,undivided,entity.Secondly,ourstraightforwardperceptionofnatureisobviouslynotrelianton

quantification.Forexample,werarelyevencountthenumberofbirdsonapond,let alone begin to submit them or the trees or stones we encounter tomeasurementsofamoredetailedsort,unlesswehavesomeotherpurposethanperception. Intuitively, we are aware that an engagement in measurementproceedsonlyinthedirectionofanalysisoftimeorspace—towardsadissectionoftheimmediatelyexperiencedoutwardform—andwetendnottoconsciouslyanalyze.Normallyperceptionisholisticandconsistsofahostofthingsthatareevenmore obviously nonmathematical in nature, such as colour, sound, scent,warmth,orbeauty.Iftheseperceptionsorqualitiesaretakenaway,ormentallysubtracted, itcannotbe thenclaimed that theyno longerexist,or that theyareuncertain,onlythattheyarenolongertheobjectofstudy.Eventually, of course, even aspects like colour and sound were, like time,

cleverly brought within the purview of measurement by once again reducingthemtowhatcouldbemeasured.Thus,theywereidentifiedwiththelengthsofwavesofelectromagneticradiation,orthewavelengthsofcompressedairinthecaseofsound.Buttheideathatawavelengthof,say,475nanometresisthesame

thing as the colour blue, must remain, to all but the most dyed-in-the-woolreductionist,absurd.Allwehavesucceededindoingisdescribingtheperceptionofblueusingcertainarbitraryterms,whichhavenorealityotherthanthatgivenbyus.The insightofEddington’s thatwewereonlyeverdealingwithpointerreadingsoninstrumentsisnotalwayskeptbeforeus.24For the same reason, beauty cannot be held to be described, other than

superficially, by the discovery that the proportions between many of theelementsinthelivingworldcorrespondtophi.Clearlymuchofnaturedoesnotconform to thismathematical relationship, yet this does not bar it from beingconsidered—orfrombeing—beautiful.Moreimportantly,though,theperceptionofbeautyoccurs irrespectiveofwhether thingsconform, indicatingonceagainthatbeautycannotbetiedtotherealmofthemeasurable,butbelongstoarealmthattranscendsquantification.Whenthearbitrarinessofthewayprimaryqualityisestablishedisrecognized,

theso-calledsecondaryqualitiesmaybeconsideredasat leastas importantasthe“primary”ones,orevenasmoreimportant,preciselybecausetheyresistthecrudemanipulation to which tangible form is susceptible. However, Galileo’sideas, subsequently taken up by thinkers likeDescartes andBacon, acted in acuriouswayonthehumanimagination.Havingoncepositedthevalidityofthemathematical method, idea and reality became confounded. The initialhypothesis that nature could be understood using mathematics becametransposedslowlyintothebeliefthatthenatureofnaturewasmathematical.

EMPIRICISM

Once the first breach in thewall ofChurch authority had beenmade, and thesuccessful use of the scientific method demonstrated, confidence in the newscience grew and it quicklyworked as a floodmight through this opening, toinundateandslowlysubmergethegreattowersofmedievalandPlatonicthoughtthat had seemed fixed forever. The metaphor seems right, for they were notdestroyedinthesenseofbeinglosttovieworunderstanding,butratheroverlaidbynew thoughtwhichseemed, formore than threecenturies, tobecapableofsupportinganewreality,butwhichlatterlyseemstopossesstheinsubstantialityofwater.Nevertheless, inEnglandat thebeginningof the seventeenth centuryBacon

declaredhisconfidenceinthefoundationbeingsolidandunshakable.InTarnas’words,

throughthecarefulobservationofnatureandtheskillfuldevisingofmanyand varied experiments, pursued in the context of organized cooperativeresearch, the human mind could gradually elicit those laws andgeneralizationsthatwouldgivemantheunderstandingofnaturenecessaryforitscontrol.25

Faithful to the initial reasoning of Galileo, Bacon was committed to theobservation of the natural world through the empirical method based onquantification and induction. By the time the atomistic theory, originallyattributed to Democritus, resurfaced in Europe through translations from theArabic, there existed, due toGalileo, a system ideally suited to its study. Theconceptionoftheseconstituentcomponentsofrealityashavingonlyquantitativecharacteristics,asDemocritushadpostulated,andnotbeingpossessedofotherqualitieslikelifeorconsciousness,meantthebeginningofalongobsessionwitha mechanical and lifeless universe. Descartes, a contemporary of Galileo,suggestedthat individualatomsdidnotmoverandomlytoformtheaggregatesthey did, but obeyed mechanically certain—and discoverable—mathematicallaws.Giventhehypothesisthatmatterattractsmatter,Newtonshowedthatallofthemotionsobservableintheheavens,togetherwithterrestrialmotion,couldbeexplainedbytheoperationofjustafewoftheselaws.Thusanewmechanisticworld quite different and non-intuitive—since it seemed not at all to fit theextravagantly alive, nonmathematical, purposive, intelligent, beautiful, worldthat ordinary perception revealed—was born. For Tarnas, “The Newtonian-Cartesian cosmology was . . . the foundation for a new world view . . . theheavenswerecomposedofmaterialsubstances...[and]theirmotionsimpelledbynaturalmechanicalforces.”26For the contemporaries of Newton, and for the scientists of the next few

centuries,thevalidityofwhathadbeendiscoveredwasnotquestioned,despitethefactthatthemethodsbywhichthediscoverieshadtakenplacehadignoredmost of the qualities to which our intelligence and senses normally ascribeimportance.IfthedivineessencesofPlatoandthefinalcausesofAristotlehadever been anything more than abstract ideas, certainly they were consideredunintelligibletoBaconandthenewmenofscience.InBacon’swritings,wefindthe clearest evidenceof the deliberate turning away from thatwhichbespeakstranscendence both in the outer realm and in the realm of the human soul.Religion and natural philosophy, he said, should not be “commixed together.”Religion“isgroundedupontheWordandoracleofGod,”andtherefore“outof

thecontemplationofnature, to induceanyverityorpersuasionconcerning thepoints of faith is inmy judgement not safe.”27Bacon is effectively divorcingDivinity from the world. A faith in empiricism and inductive reasoning hadconvincedhimthat“Tofilltheworldwith...intelligibledivineessences,asdidPlato,was toobscure frommanagenuineunderstandingofnatureon its ownterms.”28The denial of a suprasensory dimension, and the relinquishment of any

recognition that reality might be structured to allow human perception to beadequate to theunderstandingof theessenceof theworldwithout theneedforscientificinvestigation,andtheconcentrationinsteadonamaterialworldanditsexclusivelyrationaltreatment,wasanoccurrencewithoutprecedent.Insensibleto the handicapwe have been given,we are liable to believe that, before theadventofscientificmethods,muchofwhatwastermedknowledgehadnobasisinreality,butdidindeedexistintheheadsofthephilosophersconcerned.Werewetoreflectonthispresumption,though,wemight,likeSchuon,findreasontopause:

Ifhumanityhasbeenstupidforthousandsofyears,onecannotexplainhowitcouldhaveceasedbeingso,allthemoresoasitoccurredinaveryshortperiod of time; and one can explain it still less when one observes withwhatintelligenceandheroismithasbeenstupidforsolongandwithwhatphilosophicmyopia...itfinallybecame“lucid”and“adult.”29

The mistake, of course, is to assume that the early philosophers weredependingonbeliefwithoutfoundation.ButforSchuontoday,asforPlatoovertwo thousand years ago, it is the Intellect that allows knowledge. Reason,standingbelowitonthehierarchyofhumanfaculties,andnotitselfperceptive,isameanstoenunciateanddefendthatknowledgeasbestaspossible.Withoutthe guiding light of the Intellect, reason is fallible and, as Plato understood,prone to lead thought in varied and opposing directions, into paradox andconfusion,astherunawayhorsesofanuncontrolledchariot.To the rationalmind, theprofound truthsofPlato andSocrates,whichhave

their origin in Intellective perception, become only axioms that cannot besubstantiated, and the “definite” knowledge of science is contrasted with the“dogma”oftheology.Ironically,fromtheperspectiveofIntellectiveknowing,itis the path based on reason that is fraught with uncertainty, while religion—

because it harbours the doctrine of a more comprehensive knowledge—maymore justifiably layclaim to certainty.However,once the empiricalmethod isbelievedtoleadtotruth,thenthereseemsnoneedforthenon-empirical.Thus,scienceandreligiondivergedandgrewfurtherapart.Anincreasinginabilitytosee across the chasm that divided meant an increasing inability (for thescientifically minded) to distinguish between the two modes the “mind” wascapableof,andtocomprehendthestateofconsciousnessalludedtobytheology.The problem became exacerbated because over time the conviction of thescientist affected thevisionof the theologian.Eventually, lackingclear insightitself, theChurchwouldcometodefer toscienceandso,unwittingly, fulfil itsreputationasarepositoryofdogmaandsuperstition.

EPISTEMOLOGY

Confrontedwiththe“errors”ofpast“thinking,”itisunsurprisingthatageneraldoubtandscepticismconcerningallsuchthinkingshouldbegintoprevailwithinthoseofscientificbent.Inhindsight,itseemsitwasonlyamatteroftimebeforeaDescarteswould, in the interests of the new experimental approach,wish toformally renounce all earlier thought and attempt to construct an entirely newepistemologybasedonthereasoningfaculty.Descartes began by doubting everything he could. Since, however, for the

doubter there remainsone indubitablepresence—the thinkingself—itwas thisrealitythatbecameanewcornerstoneuponwhichamorescientificphilosophywastobebuilt.Theideathatthisapproachwasparticularlyoriginalorprofoundwould,ofcourse,onlyoccurtoamindcutadriftfromtheoperationofthehigherelementofhumanperception.Fromtheperspectiveofesoterism,thiswastodonomore than assert the pre-eminence of the discursivemindby removing theIntellect.InPlato’smetaphoritwastotossouttheriderinthechariotandlookinsteadtojustthehorsesandreins.Or,touseanotherPlatonicmetaphor,itwastoperceive in themannerof thecaptives in thecave,deludedbyphantasmata,unawareofthesunatthecentreoftheirbeingwhichcouldprovidethelighttosee clearly. Removal of the Intellect, the bridge between the “Self” and the“self,” necessitates the ascendancy of the psyche, or “I-maker” (in Sanskrit,ahamtattva), to pre-eminence. Paradoxically, it also appears to the newconsciousness as adiscovery; clearly,Descartes perceived it as such, andwaswell pleased with what he had found. Today, although we continue to makeadjustments andmodifications,modernist thought has remainedwith this newsystem of consciousness—the individual psyche existing in isolation from a

greaterreality.30Sinceonlythethinkingsubstance,rescogitans,possessedthenatureofcertain

truth,everythingelse,resextensa,theextendedsubstance—whatwewouldcalltheworld—wasofadifferentorder.Thissubject-objectdualismbecameanotherofthecornerstonesofscience;itistheunderstandingthatitispossibletohaveasystem composed of an isolated consciousness that is dissociated from—andthereforeunaffectedbyandnotaffecting—theobject that itstudies.However,(aswesawinparttwo)accordingtoesoterism,theselfandtheworldbothtakepartinthesamereality:theSelf,orDivinity.Theyappearassubjectandobject—asdistinct—preciselybecauseofthenatureoftheindividuatedself,anentitythatmightbedefinedbyjust thisperception.It is theoperationof theIntellectthatconfirmstheultimateillusionofthisduality,anddisallowstheabsolutenessof discontinuity that Descartes affirmed. The type of consciousness that canproclaimanunbridgeablegulfbetweenthetwoispreciselythatwhichbelievesitselftooperateindependentlyofthehigherSelf.Viewedfromtheesotericpointof view the duality is always only nominal, the reconciling of the apparentduality in thesynthesisofunitymadepossiblebythefact that theselfandtheworldareinrealitypartofthesameessence.Objectionstotheideaofessentialunity,whenlookedatdispassionately,usuallyonlyrelatetoareluctanceoftheself (the“Imaker”) toaccept that it isnot anautonomousentityanddoesnotexistindependentlyofagreaterreality.Theproblemthattheselfhaswiththisiscompounded by the fact that the Intellect, precisely because its existence hasbeenthrownintodoubtandithasbeentreatedasamentalconstruct,hascometoseemlessrealthantheindividuatedself,notmore.Forecophilosophy, themind-worldsplitaffirmedbyDescartes is significant

because it was able to crystallize the conception of the world as a soullessmachine. However, just as pertinent is the fundamental cause of Descartes’thoughtprocesses—thesplitbetweenreasonandIntellect.SincetheIntellectisaperceptive faculty, the conjecture that perceptionmight bemistrusted, not justsuperficially and occasionally, but in a fundamental manner, meant thatDescartes’consciousnesswasnotbeinginfluencedatallbythisfaculty.Tothinkashedidnecessitatedtheremovalofanyrecognitionthatrescogitanswasnotthe dominant player in the makeup of the human being. While Galileo hadposited a method to be used if science was to be successful in knowledge,Descarteshaddefined(constructed,asitwere)aconsciousnessthatfromthenondisallowedanotherwayofknowingaltogether.Descarteshad“enthronedhumanreason as the supreme authority in matters of knowledge, capable of

distinguishing certain metaphysical truth and of achieving certain scientificunderstandingofthematerialworld.”31The dominance of reason would see the understanding of the nature of

Intellectiveintuitionconsignedtoanesotericdimensionofreligion.Meanwhile,the exoteric framework of religion remained influential for some time, andreferencecontinuedtobemadetoasignificantrealitydistinctfromthematerialworldthatwasbeinginvestigated.AlthoughGodwasnotconsideredimmanent,andalthoughtherecognitionofthehigherfacultybywhichDivinityoressencecouldbeknownwasgone, theacceptanceofGod’sexistencemeant therewasstillsomesupportforthedirectionofhumanconsciousnesstowardsarealitythatwas non-material and non-sensory in nature. In the early years of science, asensitivity to the importance of theological matters still motivated men likeGalileo,Descartes,andNewton(Newton,forinstance,alwaysbelievedthathisscientificworkswereoflittlesignificancecomparedtothe“esoteric”traditiontowhichhedevotedthemajorityofhistime).Nevertheless,althoughforDescartestherewasstillarelationshipbetweenhisownmindandGod,forlater thinkersworkingwiththemethodspioneeredbyhim,thiscorrelationwaslessobvious.AsTarnasexplains,“Descartesunintentionallybegana theologicalCopernicanrevolution, for his mode of reasoning suggested that God’s existence wasestablished by human reason and not vice versa.”32 Inevitably, over time theideathatGodandthevarioustruthsrelatingtothespiritualrealmweresomehowthe invention of reason gained ascendancy. From the perspective of the mostrecentscience,theprospectoftheDivinityinthefaceofthematerialuniverseisdoubtful at best, since science recognizes no vertical dimension to reality;Divinityhas takenon thesamequalityof illusoryreality that thenewthinkerslikeBaconthoughttheyhadseeninthemindsoftheirpredecessors.

TOWARDSMODERNISM

Ifmen likeDescartes,Galileo andBacon initiated thenewvoyageof science,theEnlightenment thinkerswere responsible forensuring that theheadingwasmaintained. Rationality and empiricism combined to form a belief in thesupremacy of the humanmind over aworld ofmateriality. The hegemony ofrationalempiricism,totheexclusionofanotherwayofknowingmustbethoughtto have reached its zenith in thewritings ofDavidHume (1711-1766). InAnEnquiryConcerningHumanUnderstanding,wearepresentedwithanextremelogicaloutcome:

Whenwerunoverlibraries,persuadedoftheseprinciples,whathavocmustwe make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or schoolmetaphysics,forinstance;letusask,Doesitcontainanyabstractreasoningconcerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimentalreasoningconcerningmatteroffactandexistence?No.Commititthentotheflames:foritcancontainnothingbutsophistryandillusion.33

Hume, along with other philosophers such as John Locke (1632-1704),George Berkeley (1685-1753) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), wouldeventuallybecomescepticalofthepowerofsciencetogobeyondacertainpointusing the vessel of empiricalmethod, but remained resolute in the convictionthat there existed no alternative. Kant, in The Critique of Pure Reason,demonstrated that both primary and secondary qualities were subjectiveperceptions,andtheultimatenatureofrealitywasunknowable,34thusdrawingto a close—for philosophy at least—the long search for essence or substanceusing reason and measurement that had begun centuries earlier. By then,however, the pronouncements of philosophers had little impact upon thescientifically minded, and the quest of science continued unabated. CertainwritingsofDarwin furtherundermined the traditionalmetaphysicsbybringinghumans within the orbit of empirical investigation. “Darwinian” thoughtremoved altogether the necessity for a supernatural agency, often invoked toupholdthestructureoftheworld.Aswesaw,theprocesseswithinnatureitself,largelyrandomandpurposeless,wereheldresponsibleforselectingalltheformsof life, and could conceivably have driven the evolution of the universe. Incorrelatingourhumannesswithotherspecies,Darwinismfurtherdiminishedanysenseofthehumanbeing’stranscendentqualities.Itinitiated,too,theprocessbywhichtheminditselfwastobecomeassociatedwiththematerialrealm,leadingtothebeliefthatitisanepiphenomenonofthebrain.

FOOTNOTES

1Thegoldensectionmaybederivedfromamathematicalsequence(beginning:1,1,2,3,5,8,inwhicheachnumberisgeneratedbyaddingtheprecedingtwo)“discovered” by Fibonacci during the Renaissance. The Fibonacci Series“underliesmanyfeaturesofthenaturalworld:itdeterminesthenumberofleavesgrown and extended by any plant for optimum chlorophyll production. It alsogoverns the spiral seed display on pineapples, the spirals generated by snail

shellsandthechamberednautilus;thehornconfigurationofdeerandantelopes;andthematingpatternsandnumberofgenerationaldescendentsofbees,rabbitsandothersmallmammals,eveninsects”(Lane,TimelessBeauty,p.60).2 For the Greeks, says Richard Tarnas, there was “implicit emphasis on anintegrated multiplicity of cognitive modes.” Furthermore, the cosmos was a“transcendentandpervasiveunitaryorder informingbothinnermindandouterworld, inwhich recognition of the one necessarily signified knowledge of theother”(RichardTarnas,ThePassionoftheWesternMind[NewYork:Ballantine,1991],pp.287and286).3BertrandRussell,AHistoryofWesternPhilosophy(London:Unwin,1984),p.13.4Russell,AHistoryofWesternPhilosophy,pp.14-15.5 LordNorthbourne, “The Beauty of Flowers,” inLooking Back on Progress(Ghent,NY:SophiaPerennis,1995),p.45.6Tarnas,ThePassionoftheWesternMind,p.292.7Theoriginofthisview,Sherrardsays,canbetracedatleastasfarbackasthelateMiddleAges,andAquinas’claimthat“theonlyknowledgewhichmanasarational creature could effectively obtainwas . . . that which he could derivefromtheobservationofphenomenathroughthesenses—apropositionwhichisat the very basis of the later scientific attitude to knowledge” (Sherrard, “TheDesanctificationofNature,”inSeeingGodEverywhere,p.126).8Several of the books ofRichardDawkins orCarlSagan,whichmarshal the“facts”ofsciencetoexposethe“unreasonableness”ofreligiousbeliefs,couldbecitedinthisregard.See,forexample,Sagan’sTheDemonHauntedWorld,andDawkins’ The River Out of Eden and The God Delusion (London: Bantam,2006).9Tarnas,ThePassionoftheWesternMind,p.294.10For example, thephilosopher andmathematician,Nicholas deCusa (1401-1464); the humanist philosopher and Neo-Platonist, Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499);theChristianmystic,JacobBoehme(1575-1624);WilliamBlake;andtheEnglish Platonist Thomas Taylor (1758-1835). Their voices, if increasinglyignored, were not wholly silenced, evidenced today by the resurgence in theexpositionofthesophia.11PhilipSherrard,HumanImage:WorldImage,(Ipswich,England:Golgonooza

Press,1992),p.3.12ThefirsteditionofRevolutionibusOrbicumCoelestium(OntheRevolutionsof theHeavenly Spheres) even contained an unauthorized preface byAndreasOsiander, which described the book as hypothesis only. See Colin Wilson,Starseekers(London:Granada,1982),pp.105-106.13 In 1979, Pope John Paul II officially re-opened the case against Galileo.“Four years later, the commission reported that Galileo should not have beencondemned,andthechurchpublishedallthedocumentsrelevanttohistrial.In1992, thepopeendorsed thecommission’sconclusion” (StephenHawking,OntheShouldersofGiants[London:Penguin,2002],p.398).14TheideaofamovableEarth,whichwascontrarytoaliteralinterpretationofcertainscripturalpassages,mighthavebeenaccommodatedinanagewithlessneed for caution. However, the Church was under attack by a ProtestantismcriticalofjustthissortofdivergencefromBiblical“truth.”Tarnasstates:“Whileinanearliercentury,Aquinasor theancientChurchfathersmighthavereadilyconsidered ametaphorical interpretationof the scriptural passages inquestion,thereby eliminating the apparent contradiction with science, the emphaticliteralism of Luther and his followers had activated a similar attitude in theCatholicChurch”(Tarnas,ThePassionoftheWesternMind,p.252).15CharlesLeGaiEaton,KingoftheCastle(Cambridge:IslamicTextsSociety,1990),p.166.16S.H.Nasr,ScienceandCivilization (Cambridge:TheIslamicTextsSociety,1987),p.174.17Galileopromoted thesystembythedevious,and itmightbesaid insulting,meansofapolemicaldialoguebetweentwoproponentsofthenewsystemandathird,Simplicio,whoseemedtorepresentthePope.18Galileo quoted in JohnHermanRandall,TheMaking of theModernMind(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1976),p.237.19Tarnas,ThePassionoftheWesternMind,p.263.20 R.D. Laing quoted in Fritjof Capra,The Turning Point (London: Fontana,1990),p.40.21DavidBohm,WholenessandtheImplicateOrder(London:Routledge,1983),p.22.22RenéGuénon,TheReignofQuantityandtheSignsoftheTimes(NewYork:

SophiaetPerennis,1995),p.36.23 For Guénon, “The truth is that time is not something that unrolls itselfuniformly, and consequently the practice of representing it geometrically by astraight line, usual among modern mathematicians, conveys an idea of timewhichiswhollyfalsifiedbyover-simplification. . . .Thecorrectrepresentationof time is to be found in the traditional conception of cycles” (Guénon, TheReignofQuantityandtheSignsoftheTimes,p.53).24 See Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (New York:MacMillan,1928).25Tarnas,ThePassionoftheWesternMind,p.272.26Tarnas,ThePassionoftheWesternMind,pp.270-271.27FrancisBacon,AdvancementofLearning,ed.W.A.Wright(Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press, 1900), II,6,I and II,24,3. Sherrard comments: “The divorcebetweenreligionandphilosophyisabsolute:concernforthespiritualisbanishedfrom the study of physical phenomena and all scientific knowledge must bederived from the observation of a natural world regarded as a self-subsistententity”(Sherrard,“TheDesanctificationofNature,”p.114).28Tarnas,ThePassionoftheWesternMind,p.273.29 Frithjof Schuon, From the Divine to the Human (Bloomington: WorldWisdom,1982),p.12.30It is inDescartes’newepistemologythatwefindtheoriginsofthepresent-dayconfusionbetween“spirit”and“soul,”thetwoquiteseparateentitiesbeingconfounded in his philosophy. On this matter, see Guénon, The Reign ofQuantityandtheSignsoftheTimes,p.283.31Tarnas,ThePassionoftheWesternMind,p.279.32Tarnas,ThePassionoftheWesternMind,p.279.33 David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1983),p.165.34SeethesynopsisinRussell,AHistoryofWesternPhilosophy,p.685.

CHAPTERSIX

TheCrisisofModernScience

Itwasnotuntiltheadventofquantumphysicsintheearlytwentiethcenturythatthe landscape that always seemed just aheadon thehorizonbegan to shimmeranddissolve.Tostudythefindingsofquantumphysicsistobemadeawarethatthe seemingly stable structure—the epistemology, ontology, and cosmology ofscience that has been built up over the preceding four hundred years—hasalreadyrevealedaseriousflaw.Yet,toexaminethedeepfissurethatisquantumscience closely is to see not only evidence for imminent collapse, but also anopeningthroughwhichthelightofatraditionalmetaphysicsstillpenetrates.Aconfidenceinthepowerofreasontorevealwhatwastrue,alongwiththe

clear distinction between subject and object, had prevailed into the twentiethcentury despite the scepticism of philosophers, even within relativity theory.AlthoughtimeandspaceseemedtodisplaycuriouscharacteristicsindefianceoftheabsolutequalitiesthatNewtonianmechanicsposited,AlbertEinstein(1879-1955),oneofthelastprominentphysiciststoretainthebeliefthatsciencewasinsome way seeking to fathom God’s mind, was still confident that the newfindings of physics could be squared with this belief. The quantum world ofWernerHeisenberg(1901-1976)andNielsBohr(1885-1962),though,seemedtodo for physicswhatDarwin had done for evolution. It displayed a non-causalrandomness so at odds with what had been expected that Einstein thought itabsurd;“Godissubtle,”heprotested,“butheisnotmalicious.”Bohr had begun by questioning Ernest Rutherford’s (1871-1937) nuclear

modelof theatom,believing itunstable since theelectrons shouldhave fallenintothenucleuswhentheygaveoffenergy.Hetheorizedthattheabsorptionandemission spectra (known of, but not explained) corresponded to the suddenreleaseorabsorptionofquantaofenergyintheformofphotonsbytheelectronwhen it jumped instantaneously between orbits or energy states.However, the“planetary orbit” view was thought unsatisfactory and unnecessary byHeisenberg, who developed a strictly abstractmathematical description of thespectra(aquantumor“matrix”mechanics).Atthesametime,LouisdeBroglie(1892-1987),continuingwiththeolderideaoflightaswaveratherthanparticle,proposed that particles (electrons), too, be thought of as waves. ErwinSchrödinger (1887-1961) showed that the electron couldbe conceivedof (andvisualizedonceagain)asa“standingwave”whosefrequenciescorrespondedto

the “orbits” of Bohr, and the “energies” calculated by Heisenberg. However,although Schrödinger’s mathematical solution (or “wave function”) wasequivalent to Heisenberg’s, only the standing wave of one electron wasconceivableinthree-dimensionalspace;morewavesrequiredextradimensions.Hence,forMaxBorn(1882-1970),thewaveswereonly“wavesofprobability”in abstract space. The attraction for the intuitive clarity of “wavemechanics”over the abstraction of “matrix mechanics” seems to reflect a desire for theretentionof certainty about thenatureof the subatomicworld—ultimately, theretentionofadualitywheretheobservercouldknowwithcertaintythenatureofthe observed. However, Heisenberg’s mathematics showed that the value ofsomeobservablesmeant theuncertaintyofothers; thepositionandmomentumofparticlescannotbothbeestablishedsincetheactofobservationchangedtheproperties of an object (a fact later demonstrated in the famous “microscopeexperiment”). Thus the resulting “indeterminacy principle” was a statementabout the ineluctable connection between observer and observed.Bohr agreedabout the uncertainty of accurate measurement, but not about there beingexisting properties within the atom that we were supposedly affecting by ourmeasurements. In the 1927 “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum theory,Bohr and Heisenberg agreed that the very fact of our interactionmeant therecouldbenoseparateor independent“things” in thesubatomic realm,butonly“tendencies toexist”;cause-and-effect relationshipsarenot tenable if reality isanindissolublewhole.Whenitwasrealizedthatthenewphysicswasshowingthattheconstituents

of matter demonstrated only probabilities of existence, atoms being neitherdiscrete (particles) nor continuous (waves) but able to exhibit bothcharacteristics;thattheuniversewasnotfundamentallymechanicalorcausalinnature;andthatwecouldnolongerclaimtobeabletostudynatureasdiscreetobservers,butthatweactuallyinfluencetheoutcomeofanevent,itshouldhavepromptedsuspicion.Wasthelong-heldassumptionthatsubstanceoressenceistobefoundthroughreductionismmistaken?Wasacoherentontologypossible,given theself-imposedrestrictionson thegatheringofdataand therestrictionsonwhat can be studied? Is the “metaphysics” ofmodern science true or onlyrelativelytrue?Sincewhatisexamined,andhowitisexamined,canbetracedtoaconsciouschoice,towhatextentistheconsciousnessoftheperceiverinvolvedintheoutcome?Indeed,couldthemodeofconsciousnessoperatingwhiledoingscience be the reason for the particular answers that naturewas giving?Thiswas not at all the conclusion reached. Bohr thought that if people were not

deeplydisturbedbythefindings,theyhadnotunderstoodthem.Forhim,therewasnounderlying reality that couldexplainwhat the instrumentsofdetectionwere registering: “There is no quantumworld. . . . There is only an abstractquantumdescription.”1Heisenbergwasalmostindespair:“Irepeatedtomyselfagainandagainthequestion:Cannaturepossiblybesoabsurdasitseemedtousin these atomic experiments?”2 Nevertheless, the particular reading of thequantumworldfixedinthe“Copenhageninterpretation,”absurdthoughitmightseem,wasbelievedbyBohrtobewhatlayattheheartofthings.By1932,JohnvonNeumann (1903-1957) had demonstratedmathematically the impossibilityof physical reality consisting of “ordinary objects,” thus vindicating quantumtheorytomostphysicists.Given that the universe was apparently very ordered and displayed at the

macrolevelampleevidenceofcausation,therewasgoodreasontodoubteitherthefindingsorthemethodology.EinsteinwaspassionateinhisrefusaltoadmitthattheuniversewasasBohrsaid:“That[God]playsdice...Icannotbelieveforasinglemoment,”hedeclared.3But, continuing towork from thebasisofmathematics, Einstein was unable to resolve the problem of an indeterminateworld.Andalthoughsomephysicistsbelievedthattheequationsdidnotactuallydescribehowtheworldis,tosavethemethodology,asitwere,otherspointedtoaninadequacyofhumancognition—theworldcouldnotbeknown:

thestructureofnaturemay...besuchthatourprocessesofthoughtdonotcorrespondtoitsufficientlytopermitustothinkaboutitatall....Wehavereachedthelimitof thevisionofthegreatpioneersofscience, thevision,namely,thatweliveinasympatheticworldinthatitiscomprehensiblebyourminds.4

The conclusions of Kant and Hume had finally extended into the realm ofscience.At the same time,because, asThomasKuhn (1922-1996) recognized,thereisalwaysanunwillingnesstobreakwithalong-standing“paradigm,”mostphysicistshavecontinuedtodoscienceasifthesefindingswerenotapplicable—as if hidden variables could re-instate and make valid the separation ofobserver and observed. Even when there is a willingness to admit of analternative to scientific consciousness, when writing from the perspective ofscience there is retained something of the conviction of the scientificmethod.Hence, the“unreasonable,”evenparadoxicalcharacteristicsof thenewphysics

haveledsome,likeCapra,tosuggestnotacontrast,butacomparisonwiththesubtletiesofesotericthought.Suchmusingsarebasedontheassumptionthatthetwoareequallyvalidaswaysofknowing.InTheTaoofPhysics,Caprawrites:

Whenevertheessentialnatureofthingsisanalysedbytheintellect,itmustseem absurd or paradoxical. This has always been recognized by themystics,buthasbecomeaprobleminscienceonlyveryrecently.5

Yet,forCapra,this“problem”doesnotleadtoscepticisminregardtoscience,forhestates:“Atomicphysicsprovidedthescientistswiththefirstglimpsesoftheessentialnatureofthings.”6CapraisnotseriouslyquestioningthefindingsofquantumphysicsorthemethodswhichsciencehaspractisedsincethedaysofGalileo.Instead,heseesasimilaritybetweenthefailureofordinarylanguagetodeal with the quantum world and the way that language fails to adequatelydescribe the mystical one, resulting in the “paradoxes” of, say, Zen, Eckhart,Sufism,ortheVedanta.Yetthetwocannotbeconsideredatallalikeunlessonebelievesthatreductionismisofequalvaliditytoitsopposite—holism;orthattheanalysisofscienceissomehowequivalenttothatofthemystic’snon-analysis;orthat reason or discursive thought is of equal validity to Intellective intuition.Granted,paradoxoften resultsupon translationof themysticalexperience intoordinary language, but the initial perception is not based on reductionism,analysis or reason. The mystic would say that their perception is of how theworld actually is, whereas science will tell us not how it is, but only how itappears,basedonamorelimitedperceptionandapproach.7Themovement towards a synthesis ofEastern thoughtwithmodern science

thatCapraattempts,then,isinitiatednotsomuchbyasimilarityinfindingsbutby the failure of science to continue on the path of measurement by, and of,discreet entities. Quantum physics has in fact revealed an obstacle to thecontinuation of the methods of reductive science. Yet, until the obstacle isrecognizedasaninsurmountableone,thennogenuinemovementinthedirectionindicatedbymysticismispossible.SolongasCapraandotherscientistsfailtotacklethequestionofthelegitimacyofthescientificmethod,theymustlivewithits claim to the uncertainty of knowledge—and thus, logically, a scepticismconcerningtheesoteric.Yet,istheclaimbysciencethatknowledgeisalwaysuncertainlegitimate?It

mustberememberedwithwhattoolsscienceworks.SincethedaysofGalileo,

we have remained committed to a singular quest. We have defined theparametersbywhichwewillstudyreality,byinsistingthatweusequantifiabledata; thatweuseonlyoursensescombinedwithreasoning,bothinductiveanddeductive;andthatwefragmenttheworld.AsSherrardmakesclear:

Having restricted the scope of scientific investigation to the rationallyobservable and purely quantitative aspects of what is changing andimpermanent, and having adopted more or less exclusively a view ofcausalitythattakesintoaccountmerelyefficientcausesandignoresformalor spiritual causes, scientists are literally condemned to trying to explainthingsintermsofthosemeagerinterpretivepossibilitieswhicharealltheycannowenvisage.Inotherwords,theirtheoriesorhypothesesdonomorethan reflect the limitationswithinwhich theyoperateandhavenogreaterobjectivity than the arbitrary and illusory assumptions which underliethem.8

Consequently,science isnot inaposition toconfrontanunderlyingqualitativeessencesimplybecausesuchaqualityhasbeenexcludedfromtheworldbytheverymethodologythatscienceusestostudytheworld.Ironically,

it is tacitly assumed that there is nothing else to know about [the objectsscience investigates] . . . except what can be observed by the so-calledscientificmethod. . . .Havingadoptedamethodofinvestigationwhichinitsnatureprecludestheperceptionofspiritualqualities, it isgratuitous, tosaytheleast,topronouncethattheobjectoneinvestigatesistobeexplainedinnon-spiritualcategoriesalone.9

Moreover,itisamistake,logically,tonowassumethatbecausethemethodhasfailedtosupplyacoherentorexactknowledge,wearenotinapositionatalltounderstandreality.Wemaywellhavefoundthelimitsofthescientificmethod;thisisquitedifferentfromfindingthelimitstoknowledge.

MATHEMATICS

The desire to make the world answer to mathematical description may beconsideredtolieattheheartofthequandarythatbesetsthescientificparadigm,foritisintheapplicationofmathematicstotheworldthatreductionismfindsitsimpetus.Thehuman inventionofmathematicsworkedwellwithin theabstract

and imaginalworld of ideal proportions: exactmathematical values and exactmathematical figures in two or three dimensions may be conceived, andmathematicalrelationships,suchasPythagoras’theoremandpi,described.Foratime it also worked well when applied to the celestial realms, which could,initially,withstandtheapplicationofabstractconceptsbecausetheythemselveswere not considered concrete. It worked reasonablywell when applied to thehumanworld of invention and artefact, but only because this world could bemade to conform to mathematical principles; for instance buildings could beconstructed in accordancewith geometrical shapes and according to particularmathematicalratios.Themistakecamewiththeattempttoapplymathematicstoaworldnotofourmaking.Nature,as ithappened,was todemonstrateextremereluctance tohaving the

comparisonmade.Itmustalwayshavebeenasclearasitistodaythatthenaturalworld allows very few opportunities for this form of description. It containsvirtuallynothingthatisexact.Therearenotrulystraightlinesortheequivalentsof precise geometric shapes. Indeed the basic starting points for geometricalspaceare themselves illusory; thehorizon isonlyapparentlystraight,while itsperpendicular, provided by gravity, is not even visible. Crystals are roughapproximationsoftheperfectionthatismathematics.Exactcirclesdonotexistin the real world, so the ratio pi—itself not even calculable—could never beappliedexactlytoanythinginnature;theearthisnotperfectlyround,noristhesolar or lunar disc. And no two things, that might at first appear the same,actually are the same. This is as true of trees, leaves and flowers as it is ofwhirlpools, clouds or snowflakes. An almost infinite diversity, which extendsintothemicroscopiclevel(andquiteprobablythe“subatomic”level)aswellasto the macroscopic, is evident. The attempt, then, to categorize what wasobserved meant it was necessary either to postulate that the realm which laybeyond reach was perfect, and conformed to mathematical and geometricexactness of form and motion, or to create—for the world thatwas open toinvestigation—some arbitrary measuring sticks which were themselves of thenatureofexactness,andapplythemtotheworld.With regard to thenon-earthly realm, theheavens refused toobey any such

“perfect”motion. The difficulties which beset the Ptolemaic system (where asuccessive series of epicycles had to be introduced to overcome obviousdiscrepancies in the simplistic structure of “heavenly spheres”) were onlyresolved with the less-than-perfect elliptical orbits of Johannes Kepler (1571-1630).Yet,eventheellipseweimagineassomehow“outthere”isactuallynot

anywhere; it is a representation in abstract form of what takes place in theheavens. Here, as elsewhere, mathematical entities have been given anontologicalrealitythatisnotjustified.Elegant and seemingly precisemathematical laws such asNewton’s inverse

square law of gravitational attraction contained hidden discrepancies, whichmeant they did not exactly fit the world. Newtonian calculations could notexplainMercury’s perihelion, necessitating andprompting a revision basedonthemathematicsofrelativitytheory.Thus,thesamerealitywasdescribedinnewways by using new mathematical formulas; relativity theory subsumedNewtonian mechanics, which became a special instance of that theory. AndalthoughEinstein’sequationE=mc2describestheexistenceofsomeequivalencebetweenwhatwetermmatterandenergy,itsvariablesrelyonceagainontheuseofarbitrarymeasuringstickstomaketheformulawork.Ironically,science,bychoosingthemethodsofmathematicsandreductionism

toseektheessenceofreality,hassucceededonlyinoverlookingessence.Thisisbecause the essence of things, according to a traditional metaphysicalperspective, is not to be found through stripping away the “unimportant”qualities(suchascolour,sound,life,consciousness,andbeauty)andsubstitutingmathematicallyquantifiablecharacteristics.Nor, alternatively,does it lie in theretention of those qualities together with their perception by a subjectconsciousness.Theessencecannotlieanywherebutintheunityofawholethatisbothsubjectandobjectcombined.Thisimpliesthere-assemblingofjustthoseelements that modern science has chosen to keep separate. “Overlaying” theoutwardformofathingareitssubtleraspects,andthesesubtleraspectshaveanineradicable relationship with our own being because both they and theconsciousnessperceivingthembelongtoamoreencompassingreality.Thisre-assemblyofrealitymustinvolvetheremovaloftheartificiallyimposeddualismthattreatstherealmofthemindasdistinctfromtherealmofnature.Onlythenwillthoseaspects,whichforsolonghavebeenconsideredtoresideinarealmdissociatedfromnature,haveachancetobeincorporatedbackintothestructureofnature.Theperceptions, like thatofbeauty,whichwebelievearepossessedby“us,”arethenseentobeintrinsictotheworld.Theyarenot“ours”ifwedonot,atafundamentallevel,existasseparateentities.Rather,perceptionandtheperceivedarepartofthesamewhole.It is amistake to imagine that the latest physics in someway describes the

natureofultimaterealityandshowsittobeinsubstantial.Rather,therevelationsof this physics are the extreme outcome of what happens when the non-

quantifiable aspects are overlooked in favour of the quantifiable ones. Thehistoryofsciencemaybeseenasanattempttocometogripswiththeessenceofthe world through an objective encounter with it. However, this process hasproduced an artificial construct, since the very element necessary for therevelationofnature’srealnaturehasbeendivorcedfromit.Facedwiththeuncertaintyof“sure”knowledgecomingfromscienceitmight

be considered inevitable that we would attempt a reassessment of themetaphysics of the past; that, facedwith a blind alleywewould seek anotheravenue.Yet belief in the scientificmethod is so strong thatwe are extremelyreluctanttoabandonitasameanstogainingknowledge.LikeCapra,wewouldliketoincorporateitsfailureswithintheparadigmitselfandviewknowledgeashavinguncertaintybuiltintoit.Retainingitslargelyincomprehensibletruths,weprefer toutilize a traditionalmetaphysics tovindicate those “truths,”whenweshould, instead,beusingthelightof traditiontoshineuponthedesolateworldthatscienceconceives.

THESCIENCE-ENVIRONMENTINTERFACE

For countless generations one could stand under the sky at night and quitenaturallyfeelthat,gazinguponthisglory,onewaslookinguptowardsarealitythatfartranscendedourlifeonearth;indeed,thattheveilbeforethefaceofGodhadbeenlifted.Andinthatverticalstanceandupwardgazeweembodied,too,asymbol; we quite literally stood for an inner verticality, a path that leads“upward”fromthisphenomenalworldtoeverythingthatliesbeyondit.Inonlyahandfulofgenerations,whathavewebeentaughtascounterpointto

this traditionalview?Thatwe lookoutupon thecold,and the lifeless,and thestoryofastellarevolution.Thatweourselvesembodythisevolutionand,fromour dust-mote perspective, are asked to contemplate a universe of matter,movingand turningmechanically through timeat thebehestof somany laws.HowfarremovedfromDante’svisionofheavenuponheaven,andanascensionto Divinity. Our gaze too readily falls away now in defeat before anunapproachablevastness,anungraspableconception.MostintheWestarenowfamiliarwiththegrandstoryof“creation”offeredbyscience,ifnotdirectly,bywhattheyhavebeentold,thenindirectlybywhattheyhavenotbeentold—whathas been left un-said. If the stars themselves mindlessly manufacture thematerialsthataredestined,afteruncountableeons,toformthechemistryofourbodies and brains—enabling the universe, at long last, to contemplate itself—then the cosmologies of old are only the fairy stories of childhood. We are

assuredbythepopularizersofsciencethatthereisstillwonderandaweinthisnew narrative, and that if God was always illusory then we at least retainsignificancebyvirtueofbeingthe“mostintelligentlifeform”weknow,withthecapacitytonowunderstandtherealworkingsoftheuniverse.There was a time when the men who stood for science also stood for

somethingmore;whenaNewtoncouldstillacknowledgetheDivinitystandingbehindphenomenal appearance or “nature andnature’s laws.”But the light oftheIntellectwasthenlittlemorethanamemory.Andthatmemoryisnowtrulyfading. Inexorably, rationality and an empiricism based on mathematics hasgainedtheupperhandandthese,coupledwithanincreasingbeliefthattherealresidesinmaterialityalone,hasled,bywayofevolutionarytheory,toapresentworldviewcompletelyatoddswiththetraditional:thatofmanhavingascendedfroman ignoblepast andnowwellon theupward road,destined for agreaterandgreaterviewofthesurroundinglandscape.Theadoptionofthisintoxicatingvisionhasbeen,andisbeing,urgeduponalargerandlargerportionofhumanity.Priortothis,anacceptanceoftheDivinity,andourconnectiontoit,hadmeant

anacceptanceofasacredcreation.Iftherewasnotexactlyaprohibitionontheutilization of theworld for need, therewas restraint.We did not, as Sherrardsays,“deliberatelyblastitsgutsout...orrapeitinanyofthethousandsofwaysinwhichwe are now raping it.”10But theworld strippedof its sacredness aseitherdivinemanifestationorcreation,andhumanitystrippedofitssacredness,its higher potentialities, meant “free” beings destined to utilize a nowwhollymaterial world for material benefit. The “desolation” referred to above is farmore thanconceptual.The tenetsofscience—itsepistemologyandontology—which provide the particular image we have of the world and of ourselves,inevitably extend their influence into the phenomenal world. From the verybeginning,science’sapproachtonatureanditslifeencouragedalevelofabusethathadnotexistedinalltheprecedingcenturies.InBacon’sviewofnatureasthefeminineneedingtobe“hounded,”andintheCartesianexperimentsonliveanimals, we can witness the beginning of what would become a sustaineddestructionandpillage,stillreflectedtodayinthebeliefthatwehavetheright,inthenameofscience,toexperimentortamperwithanylifeform.Evenso,thedetrimental impact could be largely overlooked until the technologicalinventionsof thenineteenth and twentieth centuries (their use sanctionedby abelief in theworldasa soullessmechanism)made it impossiblenot todrawaparallelbetweenthescientificparadigmanditseffectontheworld.An “environmental” awareness, beginning in the nineteenth century and

extendingintothenexttwo,madeitapparenttomanypeoplethatthebeautyofthenaturalworldwasdisappearing,strippedawayandconvertedintothethingswhichtechnology—aproductofscience—couldcreateoutof it.Theadventofthematerialistviewseemedtopromotetheremovalofeverythingthatbespokeapre-scientific, pre-materialistic outlook. The natural world had stood ascounterbalancetotheworldofhumanculture,offeringareminderofallthatlaybeyond that sphere. Now the “death of nature” looms on the horizon, theconversion of the planet into a human ecosystem of drastically impoverishedproportionssignalling,perhaps,thebreakdownoftheentireGaiansystem.Theproductsofsciencearetearing“Gaia’s”face;theblackdustofnuclearwarcouldobscureitcompletely.Ifthesepotentialitiesarenotthoughttheworstindictmentof science, it is onlybecause science itself has helped to foster amentality ofdetachmentfromtheworldithasbroughtforth.Bronowskioncepassionatelyexpressedhisdefenceofscience.Inoneofthe

mostpowerfulmomentsinfilm,heisseentowalkfullyclothedintoashallowpoolatoneof theNazideathcamps, and, crouching, takeupahandfulof themudthere:

Itissaidthatsciencewilldehumanisepeopleandturnthemintonumbers.Thatisfalse,tragicallyfalse....TheconcentrationcampandcrematoriumatAuschwitz...iswherepeoplewereturnedintonumbers.Intothispondwereflushedtheashesofsomefourmillionpeople.Andthatwasnotdonebygas.Itwasdonebyarrogance....Whenpeoplebelievethattheyhaveabsoluteknowledge,withnotestinreality,thisishowtheybehave.11

Butitisscientistswhohavetreatedtheworldasamachine.Itissciencethathasmeasured most of the world out of existence, and has progressively strippedaway the subtler attributes of humanity, substituting instead a being with thenatureof amechanism. It is science thathasclaimed theauthority todescribewhattheworldisandwhatweare.Ifhumanismorspiritualitystillsurvives,ifaloveoftheworld’sbeauty,itslife,stillmovesthehumanimagination,itisnottothecreditofsciencethatitdoesso,buttothosewhorefusetoacquiescetotheinhuman world that science often imposes by virtue of the way it perceives.Those—many of whom are to be found in the environment movement—whointuitively rail against the diminished self andworld and reach back to a dimmemoryofwhatwas,mustrejectmuchofwhatsciencehastaughtandcontinuestoteach.

Whatisunderquestionhereisnotsomuchtherightofanempiricalmethodtoestablish a relative truth. It is the tragic assumption that the old truth is to bejudged in the lightof thenew,and the terrible injusticeofoftenpropagatingaview—quite untenable—that science deals with all of reality. Through this, adeception is foisted on humanity; faced with seemingly only one truth, whatchoicecanthenbemade?It isalwaystemptingtoquestionthelegitimacyofearlierbeliefs—itiswhat

science does best. Today the scientific outlook is so pervasive in academiccirclesthatitisincreasinglydifficulttotalk,otherthandefensively,ofDivinityor a Truth independent of scientific knowledge. Proponents of the scientificenterprisepoint to theobviouscredibility themodernoutlookhas,byvirtueofthe very fact that it has triumphed over what went before; that a return to apreviousthinkingwouldbesomehowimpossiblebecauseofwhatwenowknow;thatwemustnotgiveupasystemthatseemstowork,andsoon.Yet,isitnoteasytodiscernherethedefenceofanewabsolute?Leavingasidethenearimpossibilityofconvincingtherationalscepticofthe

reality of what cannot be studied with the methodology of science, twoobservationsmay bemade here. Firstly, there is the somewhat sobering pointthatmuch of humanity is not persuaded by the secular beliefs of themodernworld, and does not subscribe to the answers of science in matters ofmetaphysics, but retains the remnants of a more traditional perspective.Secondly, there need be no fear of a return to an “age of ignorance,” since areturninthatsensehasbeenmadeimpossibleanyway.Becauseofallwehaveexperiencedatthehandsofscience,andbecauseofallwehavelostthereby,thewisdomofouragemust lie inencompassingmoreandmoreofwhathasgonebefore. Precisely by virtue of the times in which we live, traditionalists havebeencompelled towardswhat ina sense isnew:a synthesisof thought,wherethe relevance of our metaphysical heritage is made cogent not just by thecomparingofvariousreligioustraditionsbutbyitscontrastwiththelimitationsandfailingsofscientificknowledge.Wemaychoosetostandnowasoneinoldagewho,withhindsight,seeswheretheywentastray;knowingthemistakesthatweremade,butdeterminednottorepeatthem;rememberingthetruthslearntinchildhood,andhonouringthelegacyofthepast.136It is often claimed that it is not the scientific paradigm—itself supposedly

neutral—that is bad, but the products of the scientific vision—that is,technology.Yetthisviewfailscompletelytotakeintoaccounttheworkingoutoftheunderlyingassumptionsofscience.Itcannotbeneutralsinceitisbasedon

premiseswhichthemselvescannotbeproven,forexamplethatonlyquantifiablesensedataisthetruemeasureofwhatisreal,orthatreasonisthebest,oronly,interpreterofthatdata.Thesepremisesmustbytheirinherentlogicdeny,oftenactivelyoppose,aviewwhichsuggests that there ismore to theworld,and toourselves,thanmeetstheeye.Thus,settingitselfupasthesolearbiterofwhatisacceptable, itmust be implicated in the ongoing production of a host of evilswhich, no longer having any counter-knowledge to oppose them, are indeedaccepted without much fuss. We have only to think of the wholesale andsystematicdestructionofplantandanimallifeacrosstheglobe;themanufactureof deadly chemicals that we pour with seeming abandon over our land, thatpoisoncrops,rivers,seas,theanimals,thebirds,andourselves;theuseofmorechemicalstoadulterateourfood,andindrugswhichoftendepleteandultimatelybreakdownourbodies;therelegationofouranimalstonomorethanmachinesinfactoryfarms;therelegationofourselvestoasimilarfateinthecities—liveslivedwithoutrealpurposeorbeauty;thestorageofspentnuclearfuels,ortheirdeliberate release in the wars we wage, that can only promise a nightmarishoutcomesometime in the future.The list isnotexhaustive. In reference to thesubject at hand though, we might ask how long the practices of that latestproduct of the scientific paradigm, genetic engineering, would last if thetraditional view of life as representing a divine handiwork were seriouslyentertainedoncemore.When the underlying assumptions of science are found to have such

devastating consequences,we are right to criticize.And since any philosophythat does not recognize the purely relative nature of the epistemology andontologyofsciencecanneverbewhollyfreeofthestainoftheseconsequences,italsomustbechallenged.“Atotalitarianrationalism,”saysSchuon,

that eliminates both Revelation and Intellect, and at the same time atotalitarianmaterialismthatignoresthemetaphysicalrelativity...ofmatterandoftheworld...doesnotknowthatthesupra-sensible,situatedasitisbeyondspaceandtime,istheconcreteprincipleoftheworld,andthatitisconsequently also at the origin of that contingent and changeablecoagulationwecall“matter.”Ascience that iscalled“exact” is in factan“intelligence without wisdom”, just as post-scholastic philosophy isinverselya“wisdomwithoutintelligence”.12

REDUCTIONISMANDBEAUTY

Almost without exception modern ideas concerning beauty have been placedprecariously upon a foundation of thought that is dualistic, reductionist, andmaterialistic;andtheseemingsolidityof thequantifiableormeasurablecannotbutcontrastwiththatwhicheludesmeasurement.Whiletheviewthattherewasa correspondence between the world’s nature and our own perception of itprevailed,thereremainedasenseinwhichnon-measurablethingswerestillreal,eventhoughtheycouldnotbestudiedusingthemethodsofscience.ButwhenDescartes postulated the radical dualism of mind and world, he effectivelyremoved that connection, and the so-called secondary qualities were fullyidentifiedwithrescogitans,orthepsyche.Descarteshimselfbelievedthemindto be themore significant of the two.Hence, apart from a brief period in theeighteenth centurywhen empiricists such as JosephAddison (1672-1719) andFrancisHutcheson(1694-1746)sawnatureasworthyofaestheticappreciation,this general belief affected the philosophical approach to beautywell into thetwentiethcentury.Beautyinnaturewaslargelyignoredinfavourofart;indeed,aesthetics was considered to be the philosophy of art.13 Meanwhile, theascendancyofsciencetendedtowardsareversalofDescartes’view,andtodayitis farmore likely that those qualities taken to belong to themind, and called“subjective,” will be thought less important, because less real. Thesubjectiveness of beauty is now a commonplace, reflected above all in therelinquishmentofobjective standards inart.The twentiethcenturymovementsin art were not just a response to the turmoil that scientific endeavour hadbrought to both the phenomenal world and the conceptual one, they alsoreflectedamovementtowardsthetotalexpressionofindividualism,abeliefthatbecausebeautywassubjectiveanyway,anyone’sviewofbeautywasvalid.Aestheticappreciationofnature reappeared inphilosophy in thesecondhalf

of the twentieth century. Regard for the beauty of nature had existed as anundercurrentwithintheNorthAmericannaturewritersofthenineteenthcentury.JohnMuir,especially,equatedbeautywithwildnature,and, sincehealsosawuglinesswhereverthehumanworldimpacted, theclearassociationbetweenan“integral”wildernessandbeautywasmade.Muirinfluencedtheparticularviewnow common among environmentalists that naturewhich bears no discerniblehuman imprint is unquestionably beautiful. This “positive aesthetics” whichAllen Carlson has enunciated14 readily acquiesces to the two aspects—“stability” and “integrity”—which Leopold propounds, and views the third—“beauty”—asanaturalconcomitance.

A significant point to make in regard to this modern view, though, is thatundertheinfluenceofsciencetheappreciationofnaturecaneasilytendtowardstherationalistic;thatis,theviewthatifweareawareoftheaspectsinnaturethatareobjectiveormeasurable,thenourappreciationofitsbeautywillbeincreased.Callicott’s“environmentalaesthetics”(referredtoinchapter3)isacaseinpoint.Heretheperceptionofbeautyissteeredtowardsintellectualconstructsandawayfrom what is, otherwise, taken to be a purely sensory experience. Thus,consciousness is held in thrall to reason and not permitted to expand in thedirection of pre-rational awareness, or encouraged towards the awareness thatthere is more in nature than science allows. More significantly, through theinfluence of a scientifically underpinned modernism, natural beauty goesunrecognized as a reality that could extend the range of consciousness so thatmoreofwhatnature iscouldbeknown(a logicaloutcomeof the traditionalistperspective).Instead,thescientificparadigm,withitssingularunderstandingofour limitsandofnature’s limits, loomsin thebackgroundreadytoredirect theconsciousnessofthosewhoareatallversedinascientificknowledgeofthings.InTheAbolition ofMan, C.S. Lewis brings tomind the story ofColeridge

whooverhearstwopeoplediscussinganearbywaterfall;onecallsit“pretty,”theother“sublime.”Thepoetmentallyendorsesthesecondassertionandrejectsthefirst. However, a school textbook of Lewis’s day concludes of this aestheticexperience:

When theman saidThis is sublime, he appeared to bemaking a remarkaboutthewaterfall....Actually...hewasnotmakingaremarkaboutthewaterfall, but a remark about his own feelings.What hewas sayingwasreally Ihave feelingsassociated inmymindwith theword“Sublime”, orshortly,Ihavesublimefeelings.15

Suchsentimentshavechangedlittle;butonesenses that theoutrageLewisfeltonreadingthishasdiminishedconsiderablyinthesixtyyearssince,alongwithour inclination to defend beauty’s objectivity as passionately. When we saybeautyisintheeyeofthebeholder,wedonotmeanbythisthataspecialwayofseeing is needed in order to perceive it. An aesthetic text may well discussbeauty as though itwere in theworld, but if pressed the role of reification isreadilyacknowledged:theabstractisbeingtreatedasifitwereconcrete.16The tenets of science—reason, empiricism, reductionism, and dualism—are

both pervasive and persuasive.However, since science itself has revealed that

theapplicationofsuchtenetsisincapableofprovidingcertaintyorrevealingthenature of nature, and that it is not even legitimate to maintain a dualisticperspective,weare, ifweare tobe faithful tophilosophy,obliged to confrontbothanalternativemetaphysicsandthequestionofconsciousnessitself.Insupportof thisurgentrequirement, it is toafuller treatmentof traditional

thought that we turn in the following chapters. A study of consciousnessbecomes themeans bywhich to draw together and augmentwhat so far havebeenisolatedstrandsofesoteric thought. In thiswaywemayhope toreweavethetapestryofnature,presentingitoncemorewiththedimensionofdepthandresplendentthroughandthroughwiththethreadsofbeauty.

FOOTNOTES

1 Bohr quoted in Wolfgang Smith, “Bell’s Theorem and the PerennialOntology,”SophiaVol.3,No.1(1997):p.23.2HeisenbergquotedinCapra,TheTaoofPhysics,p.58.3EinsteinquotedinBryson,AShortHistoryofNearlyEverything,p.131.4 P.W. Bridgman quoted in Huston Smith, Beyond the Post-Modern Mind(Wheaton,Illinois:Quest,1989),p.8.5Capra,TheTaoofPhysics,pp.58-9.6Capra,TheTaoofPhysics,p.60,emphasisadded.Theattitudeofostensiblymakingroomforreligionwhileatthesametimegivingnoground,isnowherebetter represented than in E.O.Wilson’sConsilience: theUnity of Knowledge(NewYork:Vintage,1999).SeeWendellBerry’scritiqueofthisbookinLifeisaMiracle:AnEssayagainstModernSuperstition(WashingtonDC:Counterpoint,2000).7ForNasr,“TheTaoofPhysics doesnot really speakofHinducosmologyorChinese physics, but only mentions certain comparisons between modernphysicsandHinduandTaoistmetaphysical ideas . . . therearemanyprofoundcorrelations and concordances to be foundbetween certain aspects of biology,astronomy and quantummechanics on the one hand and oriental doctrines ofnature,ofthecosmos,ontheother....Butwhathasoccurredforthemostpartis not . . . [a] profound comparison . . . but its parody, a kind of popularizedversionofa religiousknowledgeofnature” (Nasr,TheSpiritualandReligiousDimensionsoftheEnvironmentalCrisis,p.16).

8Sherrard,“TheDesanctificationofNature,”p.117.9Sherrard,“TheDesanctificationofNature,”pp.116and117.10Sherrard,HumanImage:WorldImage,p.5.11Bronowski,TheAscentofMan,p.374.12FrithjofSchuon,LightontheAncientWorlds(Bloomington:WorldWisdom,1984),p.117.13 See Allen Carlson, Aesthetics and the Environment (London: Routledge,2000),pp.3-5.14SeeAllenCarlson, “Nature andPositiveAesthetics,”EnvironmentalEthicsVol.6(1984):pp.5-34.15Quoted inC.S.Lewis,TheAbolition ofMan (Glasgow:Fount Paperbacks,1978),p.7.16Forexample,ElaineScarrycanwrite,“theclaim...thatbeautyandtrutharealliedisnotaclaimthatthetwoareidentical.Itisnotthatapoemorapaintingorapalmtreeorapersonis“true,”butratherthatitignitesthedesirefortruthby giving us, with an electric brightness shared by no other uninvited, freelyarriving perceptual event, the experience of conviction and the experience, aswell, of error. This liability to error, contestation, and plurality—for which“beauty” over the centuries has so often been belittled—has sometimes beencitedasevidenceof its falsehoodanddistance from“truth,”when it is insteadthecase thatourveryaspirationfor truth is its legacy. Itcreates,without itselffulfilling, the aspiration for enduringcertitude” (ElaineScarry,OnBeauty andBeingJust[Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1999],p.53).

PartFour

THEVERTICALDIMENSION

CHAPTERSEVEN

Descent

Quantumphysicsbroughttoaclosethecenturies-longsearchfortheunderlyingsubstanceoressenceofnaturethroughtheapplicationofthescientificmethod.Untiltheadventofthenewphysics,itwasassumedthatthemeasurementsbeingmadeoftheworldalwayscorrelatedwithsomeactualthingorsubstancethat,ifnot seen, could nevertheless be imagined. From the indivisible atoms ofDemocritus to the miniature solar system of particle theory, an image of theworld we could not immediately perceive perpetuated a belief in a coherentreality.Butquantumsciencedidnotsomuchpaintaworld,asblankthecanvas.The subatomic realm was not a thing, but a “tendency to exist.” In the“Copenhagen interpretation,”only themathematicsused todescribe thatworldwere relevant; the truenatureofwhatwasbeingdescribedcouldno longerbeknown.Subatomicparticlesweremathematicalabstractions;theydepended,fortheir existence, on the collapse of the “wave function” brought about by themathematician’sownaction.Thus, theobserverwas intimatelyconnectedwiththe observation made. Indeed, the two could no longer meaningfully beseparated; the knower and what was known were indissolubly linked. Ourtheories andobservations inone sense create theuniverseweperceive; at anyonetime,theuniverseandourperceptionsofitarethesame.Thisisnottosaywecreateanobjectiveuniverse independentofourperceptionsof it,only thatwhatisknownbyusisalwaysdependentonourperceptionorconsciousness.ForKuhn,theapparatus,theoryandobserverareallpartofaparticular,highly

subjective“paradigm,”orpointofview.1Kuhnreasonedthatthereisnodefiniteprogress in science, only changes in this point of view. Now, it would be asuperficial reading of this insight to imagine that a shifting of the scientificoutlook takesplace against thebackgroundof amoreor less stable subjectiveconsciousness;thatconsciousnesscouldbetreatedaslargelyindependentoftheideasthatitadopts.Theintuitionthatthereisamoresubtletwo-wayinteractionbetween consciousness and paradigm is an ineluctable component of bothKuhn’sobservationsandofquantumscienceitself.Consciousnessmustitselfbestructuredbytheideasthatcomposeit.Ironically, a key indicator for the truth of this subtle idea is the strength of

resistancetoitsassimilation.For,inthefaceoftheextraordinaryconclusionsof

quantumscience,therehasbeenacontinuationoftheconventionalwayofdoingscience, as though the rules science has applied all along to conduct itsinvestigations still hold good. Nearly a hundred years after the “Copenhageninterpretation,” ever larger super-colliders reveal ever more “particles” thatcannotbedescribedother thanmathematically,whileprominentphysicists likeStephenHawkingcontinuetomakeclaimsforagrandunifiedtheoryasthoughwewerereallyabletodescribewhatrealityis,andnotjustourownperceptionsofit.2Admittedly,thebeliefthatold“paradigms”aresubsumedbynewerones,and the general belief in progress, helps to explain themomentumof science.However,onecouldaseasilysay that itwasas though the implicationsof themorerecentdiscoverieshavenotbeenable toimpinge.Clearly,implicitwithinthefindingsofquantumphysicsisnotjusttheissueoftherelationshipbetweenaconsciousnessandreality,butthetypeofconsciousness.Thosewhosetasidethemoreprofoundimplicationsofquantumphysicsfor thesakeofacontinuityofordinary dualistic science are effectively choosing to ignore this question ofconsciousness.Toassumethestandardapproachtodoingscienceistofixasitwere a particular consciousness of the observer, to crystallize the self into aparticular pattern, amathematical, rationalistic, dualistic pattern,which cannotbutproduceacorrespondingpatternof“reality.”

BOHM

ToturntothespeculationsoftheremarkabletwentiethcenturyphysicistDavidBohm (1917-1992)3 is to encounter an intellectual approach more consistentwiththefindingsofquantumphysics,andonethatengagesmorefullywiththisquestion of consciousness. By 1952, Bohm had successfully countered vonNeumann’sproofwithoneofhisown,re-establishinganobjectivemodeloftheelectron. His theory was confirmed when, in 1964, John Stewart Bell (1928-1990)showedthatvonNeumann’sassumptionthat“ordinaryobjects”werelocalentities(thatis,restrictedtocommunicatingthroughknownforcesatthespeedof light)wasunwarranted. Instead,Bell’s theoremshowed that realitymustbenon-local;eventsarenotlocalizedbutactuallyextendtheirinfluenceacrosstheentireuniverse.Theatomicworldwas like“apoorlydefinedcloud,dependentfor its particular form on the whole environment, including the observinginstrument.”4 Interpreting the clearly ambiguous nature of the experimentalfindings of quantum physics tomean that “nature will respond in accordance

withthetheorywithwhichitisapproached,”5Bohmconcluded,likeKuhn,that“all theories are insights, which are neither true nor false but, rather, clear incertaindomains,andunclearwhenextendedbeyondthesedomains.”6Thus,forexample,Newtonianmechanics,whichworksveryadequatelywhenitcomestocomputingthemanoeuvresandorbitsofspacecraft, isunworkableatvelocitiesclose to c, where relativity theory must operate. Because, as Bohm says, “atheoryis...awayoflookingattheworld,andnotaformofknowledgeofhowtheworldis,”7thedespairHeisenbergfeltwhenconfrontedwiththe“absurdity”of nature arose from amisunderstanding.While he believed quantum physicshad uncovered the true nature of reality, all along its answers were onlyrelatively true and contingent upon the particular method chosen to approachnature—the method itself based on prior beliefs. Like earlier scientificworldviews, the worldview of quantum physics is evidently a reflection of astateofconsciousness.ForBohmitisonlytobeexpectedthatalltheoriesareeventuallyfalsifiedand

nonepositively affirmed, as the philosopherKarlPopper had suggested.8Yet,significantly,“Thefactthatourvisionoftheworldcanbefalsifiedasaresultoffurthermovement, observation, probing, etc., implies that there ismore in theworldthanwhatwehaveperceivedandknown.”9Thus,“allourdifferentwaysof thinking are to be considered as different ways of looking at the onereality.”10Bohmsawthatwehavealwaysattemptedtounderstandtheworldbyfirst hypothesizing about it—forming a mental construct or image of it—andthenapproachingtheworldwithjustthisideaofwhatitmightbe.Eversincethedays of the rationally oriented Greek philosophers, we—as the subjectconsciousness— have attempted to develop theories about this whole—theultimatenatureofreality—andnotrealizedthattheveryprocessofcreatingthismentalconstructmeantnotonlycreatingafragmentofthewhole,butpossiblyconfusingtheconstructedfragmentwiththeworldasitis.Putanotherway,wefirst createa theory thatdelimitsor fragments theworldand then,armedwithourdelimitedview,begintobelievethatitandtheworldareoneandthesame.Reciprocally, “fragmentation is continually being brought about by the almostuniversal habit of taking the content of our thought for ‘a description of theworldasitis.’”11ForBohm,therealsignificanceofquantumphysicsliesnotinthevalueofits

method orworldview but in its ability tomake clear the limitations built into

conceptual systems as such, and so provide the impulse to step outside thescientific paradigm altogether. The evidence of quantumphysics suggests thatrealityconsistsnotofseparateanddistinctentitiesthatinteractwitheachother;theseareourideasofwhatis,basedonthebeliefthatweareentitiesthatexistapart from everything else, and on ourmental constructs regarding theworld.The reality that quantum physics points to is an undivided whole withoutboundaries in time or space. It is an “undivided wholeness in flowingmovement,”12sothatwhataretakentobeseparateentitiesappearassuchonlyin thewayvortexes ina streammightbe treatedasdistinct forawhilebeforetheyeitherchangetheircharacterordisappearoncemoreintotheoverallflow.Therefore,“whatisneeded,”saysBohm,

is to give up altogether the notion that the world is constituted of basicobjectsor‘buildingblocks’.Rather,onehastoviewtheworldintermsofuniversalfluxofeventsandprocesses. . . . [Theuniversalflux]cannotbedefinedexplicitlybut...canbeknownonlyimplicitly,asindicatedbytheexplicitlydefinableformsandshapes,somestableandsomeunstable,thatcanbeabstractedfromtheuniversalflux.Inthisflow,mindandmatterarenotseparatesubstances.Rather,theyaredifferentaspectsofonewholeandunbrokenmovement.13

Bohm’saccountofmindasbeingnodifferenttomatterconfrontsthedualismDescartespromoted,Humeretained,andKantpartiallyattenuated.14Butsincethe dualism is essential to the process of reasoning itself, Bohm, who nowmanages to throw into doubt the legitimacy of the separate self and itsconceptualizations, is immediately caught in a complexparadoxwhich alwaysfacesthosewhoconfronttheunrealityoftheisolatedselfbymeansofthatveryself.Althoughwecansuperficially takea“God’seye”view,ourverythinkingprocess invalidates that possibility. The dualism in question resists disruptionsince Bohm’s own theorizing falls within the set of all possibleconceptualizations. For this reason the question, “What is the nature of theimplicateorder,theunity,thestableentitywhichisacompositeofthethinkingsubject and all else?” can only be solved at a level beyond the ordinaryconsciousness—thatis,beyondthediscursiveorrationalmindwhichdealswithconcepts.15Poised,then,upontheelevatedplatformthatBohmprovidesuswith,wemay

glimpseaverticaldimensiontoconsciousnessopeningupbeforeus,wheretheself,byescapingitsownconceptions—itsownrationality—mighttakewing.Yetwearepinioned.Clearly,wearenot inneedoffurther theoriesfor therationalmind toentertain regarding itself (moremeasurementsof themental landscapenowbeforeus)butthemeanstoflywithinthisspaceofconsciousness.Indeed,so long as we attempt to come to grips with consciousness by applying aconceptualmethodologytoit,bystudyingitasif itwereanobject,solongdowe fail completely to appreciate what Bohm was hinting at. Consciousnesscannotbestudiedasobject.Tostudyconsciousnessisnottoknowconsciousnessatall.

SHERRARD

There may be no better contemporary demonstration of this insight than thefollowing one by Philip Sherrard,written as a letter declining an invitation toattend an International Symposium on the theme “Science of Consciousness.”Both a critique of science and a defence of traditionalmetaphysics, it has thevirtue,whileseeminglyapplyingtherulesthatrationalityitselfwouldrespect,ofspeakingforaformofconsciousnessthattranscendsthepurelyrational:

Onwhyaknowledgeofthenatureofconsciousnessdoesnotliewithinthecompetenceofthemodernscientist.

1.ItiswithmyconsciousnessthatIperceivewhateverIdoperceive.

2. Thus, how something appears to me depends on the mode of myconsciousness.

3.IcanperceiveonlywhatIamcapableofperceiving,observeonlywhatIam capable of observing, understand only what I am capable ofunderstanding.

4. Hence my understanding of the nature of something can only beaccordingtothemodeofconsciousnessthatIpossess;andthismeansthatthetruenatureofwhatIperceivemaybeverydifferentfromthatwhichIperceiveittobe.

5.AhighermodeofconsciousnessthanminewillbecapableofperceivingthetruenatureofsomethingmoreclearlythanIcanperceiveit;andsoon,

uptothehighestmodeofconsciousness.

6. These same propositions apply also to a knowledge of the nature ofconsciousness itself;myunderstandingof thenatureofconsciousnesscanonlybeaccordingtothemodeofconsciousnessthatIpossess.

7.Nothingcanbeknownexceptaccordingtothemodeoftheknower.

8. A higher consciousness than mine will be capable of a higherunderstanding of the nature of consciousness than that of which I amcapable.

9.Ultimately, toknowwhatthenatureofconsciousnessis initselfImusthaveattainedthehighestmodeofconsciousnessthatitispossibletoattain,namely,thatwhichisonewithconsciousnessitself.

10. Only such a mode of consciousness can experience and in this wayverifyaknowledgeofthenatureofconsciousness.

11. Only my experience of the nature of consciousness in itself canconstituteknowledgeofandevidenceforit.

12.Shortof thatmyunderstandingof thenatureof consciousness canbebuthypothetical,mereopinion tailoredaccording to the limitationsofmyparticular mode of consciousness, vitiated by the ignorance which theselimitations impose, and totally inaccessible to verification throughexperience. Insuchcircumstances,howconsciousnessappears tomewillbeverydifferentfromwhatitactuallyis.

13.Thehighestmodeofconsciousness,orconsciousnessinitself,isthatinwhich there is no dualism between knower and what is to be known,observer and what is to be observed, consciousness and that of whichconsciousnessisconscious.

14. This means that so long as there is in my own consciousness anydualismofthiskindIcanbesurethatIhavenotattainedthehighestmodeof consciousness that it is possible to attain.Hencemyconceptionof thenatureofconsciousnesscanbebutahypothesisoropinion,distortedbytheignorancethatpertainstoanyconsciousnessstillinthethrallofthedualism

in question. In the nature of things such hypothesis, or opinion, cannotconstituteknowledge.

15.Asthemodeofconsciousnesseffectiveforthemodernscientistisonethatisstillinthethrallofsuchadualism—forifthiswerenotthecasehecouldnotbeamodernscientist—itisonlytooclearthataknowledgeofthenature of consciousness does not lie within his competence. Hiscompetence, in this respect as well as in other respects, is necessarilylimitedtohypothesis,opinion,speculation,andnoneofthesecanbesaidtoconstituteknowledge.

16. By definition, any attempt to understand the nature of consciousnessthat is not based on the experience and knowledge of those whoseconsciousnesshastranscendedeveryformofdualismisdoomedtofutility.Thereisnopointinwastingtimeonenterprisesthataprioriaredoomedtofutility.

17.Moreover,toproceedtoaninvestigationofthenatureofconsciousnessotherwise than through the study of the testimonials of those—divinelyinspired metaphysicians, mystics, seers, prophets—who through directexperiencehaveattainedaknowledgeofthenatureofconsciousnesswouldbeamanifestationofextremearrogance,nottosaysheerimpudence;fortoproceed otherwise than through such study would be to assume thepossession of a degree of understanding and insight superior to thosepossessedby thefinest intelligenceknownto thehumanrace. Itwould infact be an unexpected bonus to find at a conference such as the oneproposedevenasinglescientistwhohasstudiedindepth—thatis,withatleastthesamediligenceanddedicationashehasstudiedhisowndiscipline—thewritingsof suchpeople.Yetunlesshehasstudied thesewritings inthisway,what qualifications does he possess that entitle him to speak toany purpose on the theme under discussion? The blind cannot lead theblind.

18.And if in response to this lastquestion it is claimed that thequestionitselfisirrelevantbecauseconsciousnesscontinuallyevolvesandthereforeourunderstandingofconsciousnessisinacontinualstateofevolution,whatadditionalevidenceisneededinorder todemonstrateboththebankruptcyofthemindthatcanmakesuchaclaimandthepointlessnessofanyfurther

discussion?16

ForcefulasSherrard’sargumentistoanintelligencenotbowedbythedictatesof rational empiricism, to the scientific consciousness itwill inevitably appearflawed. For, despite Sherrard’s invitation to think or see things outside thereferencepointthatisordinaryorscientificconsciousness,thatconsciousness,ifit is to be applied at all (and not remain mute), will inevitably approach theproblem strictly on its own terms. Sherrard, although framing his argument inthe rational terms respected by science, must step away from this point ofreference in order to advance a thesis about the limits of the very mode ofconsciousnessthatscienceexpresses.Scientificconsciousness,truetoitsnature,knows,andsocanmake,nosuchmovement.ToengagewithSherrard’svisionofconsciousnessisnotjusttoappreciatethe

realityofaverticaldimension,buttoseealsotheindicatorsof“up”and“down.”His appeal to the mystical and metaphysical tradition prepares us for thedirection his writings take (and the movement within this section), while theabruptandonlyquasi-logicalmannerofthisappealmaybeseenasanaddresstoanintuitivemodeofconsciousness,stillthepreserveofsuchtradition.Sherrardmakes clear what Bohm mooted: since consciousness is itself the faculty ofperception, itcannotbestudiedfrom“outside,” itcannotbemadeanobjectofobservationinthewayallelsecan.Totreatitassuchistoremainstaticbeforethe view of this vertical dimension. The knowledge of what consciousness iscomesthroughtheexperiencethatconsciousnessprovides.Likewise,knowledgeof the vertical dimension comes through the experience of movement in thisrealm—thatis,through“flight.”Although, for Sherrard, consciousness is seen as hierarchical in nature, it is

adequate to his purposes to speak of the extremes: of a consciousness either“egoic”or“angelic”innature.Toinvokethetermangelicistoberemindednotonlyofaheavenlyrealmbutof theaspectof lifepertainingtogoodnessor, inmodern parlance, ethics, and inHuman Image:World Image, which confrontstheerrorsofmodernscience,itismadeclearthatinscientificconsciousnessweare dealing with a form of consciousness at the opposite extreme from theangelic.Toallowourselvestobepersuadedbythementalityofquantification—which (as we saw in part three) epitomizes this consciousness—is, fromSherrard’s perspective, to descend within an ever more confining chasm ofthought, where the true dimensions of the “sky” of consciousness above arehiddenfromview.

Toseemodernscienceintermsofa“descent”ofconsciousnessis,ofcourse,to exactly reverse the conventional image. Yet even if we suspected thisconventionalimagetobenotthetruthofthematter,butoneoftheoutcomesofbeingentrappedbyaparadigmofthought,thisdoesnotitselfprovidethemeansofescapefromeithertheimageortheparadigm.Twopossiblewaysofaffectinganescapepresentthemselves.OneistotakeSherrard’sapproachandallowthemind’s eye to gaze as far into the “angelic” realm as is possible. Such ametaphysical exposition is the subject of the following chapter.Another, is toillumineourown“dark”conditionofegoicconsciousnesswiththe“light”thatoursenseofbeautyandethicsstillgives,andthiswillbethetasktakenupnow.The following two extracts fromHuman Image:World Image in one sense

recapitulateakeyfindingofpartthree.ForSherrard,whatdefinesthedownwardmovement more than anything is the “fetish” for mathematics that theprogenitorsofmodernsciencedisplayed:

Although . . . [these men] were responsible for accomplishing whatamounted to a philosophical revolution, they were not themselvesphilosophers....[To]delineatethemainfeaturesoftheirphilosophydoesnot mean, therefore, that we have to explore a complex, finely-wroughttapestry ofwisdom. . . .We have only to try to bring into focus the few‘clear’ and ‘distinct’ notions towhich theygave single-minded adherenceandwhich constituted themainsprings of their activities. The clue to thenature of these few uncomplicated notions . . . is provided for us if werememberthat...thesemenwerebrilliantmathematicians.17

Theaprioriassumption that thestructureof theuniverse ismathematicalmeansthatphysicalrealityismathematicalandthatwhatisrealinnatureisonlythatwhichcanbeexpressedintermsofstrictmathematicallaws.Thereal world is aworld ofmathematicallymeasurablemotions in time andspace.IfGodcreatedtheworldaccordingtostrictmathematicalprinciples,itmustfollowthatthewholerealmofphysicsisreducibletomathematicalqualitiesalone.Andthecorollarytothisisthattheonlywayinwhichitispossibleforustoknowobjectsinnature—toknownaturalphenomena—isthroughknowingtheirmathematicalqualities,foritisthesequalitiesalonethat constitute their reality.What is ultimately real in nature is only thatwhich can be expressed mathematically and of which mathematicalknowledgeispossible.Everythingelse—everynon-mathematicalquality—

isirrelevant.18

Applyingthisphilosophytotheworldrequiresthattheworldbebrokenintoquantifiable “constituents,”not in the abstractwayof theGreeks,but literally.Thesuicidalassaultsonourenvironmentanduponourselvesremainmysteriousonlysolongasweignorethisprocessofquantificationbywhichallthenegativetraitsofapurelyegoicconsciousnessform:

Theindustrialandtechnologicalinfernowehaveproducedaroundus,andbymeansofwhichwearenowdevastatingourworld,isnotsomethingthathascomeaboutaccidentally.Onthecontrary,itisthedirectconsequenceofourallowingourselvestobedominatedbyacertainparadigmofthought—embracing a certain human image and a certain world image—to such adegreethat itnowdeterminesvirtuallyallourmentalattitudesandallouractions,publicandprivate.Itisaparadigmofthoughtthatimpelsustolookuponourselvesaslittle

morethantwo-leggedanimalswhosedestinyandneedscanbestbefulfilledthrough the pursuit of social, political and economic self-interest.And tocorrespond with this self-image we have invented a worldview in whichnatureisseenasanimpersonalcommodity,asoullesssourceoffood,rawmaterials,wealth,powerandsoon,whichwethinkwearequiteentitledtoexperiment with, exploit, remodel and generally abuse by means of anyscientificandmechanicaltechniquewecandeviseandproduce,inordertosatisfy and deploy this self-interest. Having in our minds desanctifiedourselves,wehavedesanctifiednature,too,inourminds:wehaveremovedit from the suzerainty of the divine and have assumed that we are itsoverlords, and that it is our thrall, subject to ourwill. In short, under theaegis of this self-image andworldviewwe have succeeded in convertingourselves into themost depraved and depraving of all creatures upon theearth.19

If,withinthescientificcommunityitself,itistooeasilyforgottenthatmodernscience is always impinging upon the field of ethics, for ecophilosophy thiscorrelation is clear. From a study of the seemingly endless list of detrimentaloutcomesoftheworkingsofmodernscienceitisbutasmallsteptoconclude,asdoes Sherrard, that modern science reflects a particular mindset that is itselfoftendangerousandworkingcountertotheinterestsofhumanlifeandplanetary

welfare; that the whole scientific venture is not just ethically neutral butunethicalinnature.Yettimeandagain,thetemptationistoexcusethescientificprocess itself of culpability, to imagine a certain innocuous neutrality in theexperimentalproceduresthatprecedeany“realworld”applications.20Althoughalreadyrefutedinpreviouschapters,twomorethingsmaybesaidin

responsetothisposition.Firstly,theprocessitselfisnotbeyondcriticism.Longbeforewearereadytoapplythefindingsofscience,wearealreadyengagedinsuspectactions.Environmentalphilosophycanbecreditedwithbringingtolightlong-standingbuthitherto“invisible”unethicalprocedures.Eversincethedaysof Descartes, animal experimentation in the laboratory and in the “field” hasbeenacommonelementinmanyareasofresearchandhasledtothesystematicabuse,torture,anddeathofuntoldnumbersofindividuals.Sometimesthisisinthe name of possible “benefits” to our own state;more often just curiosity todeterminehownaturefunctions.Nor,asecophilosophyjustifiablyclaims,needethical concern be restricted to sentient creatures. Yet the rights, or theinfringement of the rights, of “inanimate” nature to be free of unnecessaryexperimentation are rarely perceived even to exist. If we also include whatamounts to an experimental exposure of the human organism to a barrage ofsynthetic chemicals and radiation with partially unknown effects, orexperimentalmedicine and surgery, or the exposure ofmillions to the risk ofinjury and death through large-scale electromagnetic experiments that test ourcapacitytodisruptnormalatmosphericstates,itisclearthattheveryattempttodoscienceisoftenethicallydubious.21Secondly, in the rare cases when the practice of science can be thought

initially free of obvious ethical concerns, we find that a faith in the overallpositiveoutcomeofscienceexpressesitselfasahubristhatoftenleads,whileitlasts,toheedlessness,blindness,ordisregardfortheconsequences.Thismindsetactstoleadalongaparticularlydestructivepath,andthesupposedneutralityisexposed as imaginary. Here, there may be no clearer example, or one thatremains potentially more hazardous, than that of the development of nuclearweaponry.It will be recalled that it was Einstein who was responsible for the

mathematics that revealed the equivalence of mass and energy, and so thecolossaldestructiveforcescontainedinagivenmass.Asatheoreticalphysicist,Einsteincouldbethoughtexemptfromculpabilityintheusetowhichhisworkwasput—thedevelopmentoftheatomicbomb.22Itisfarlesscertain,however,

thattheLosAlamosteamundertheleadershipofRobertOppenheimer(who,inthe first trialof thebomb,wasprepared to risk igniting the atmosphereof theplanet) was as innocent. Oppenheimer’s own confession, after witnessing thedestructionofHiroshimaandNagasaki,that“thephysicistshaveknownsin;andthis is a knowledge which they cannot lose,”23 may be the strongest everindictmentofthescientificenterprisebyascientist.Hisdeclarationmighthavebeen regarded as cautionary: science, through its unleashing of extraordinaryenergiesofdestruction,couldneveragainbeseenasjustawaytodescribetheworld,andmustnowbemindfulofitsethicalresponsibilities.Nevertheless,anyconcernsthatexistedhadlittle impactuponfuturenuclear

policy,asatmosphericandundergroundnucleartestscontinuedinAustralia,thecontinental United States, and the Pacific islands. By the last decade of thetwentieth century, French Polynesia—once a paradise on earth—had beenconverted into a high-level nuclear waste dump. It has been claimed that adevastatingplutoniumleakfromoneofthemanyspheresofdetonationbeneaththeseabedofMururoaatoll ispossiblewithin10-20years,andcertain in500-1000years.24Thefactthatwehavenow“learnedtolivewith”theseoutcomes,doesnothingtochangetheirunethicalnature.Moresignificantly,inthecontextofthe“verticaldimension,”complacencyandanexpectationoftragedy,suggestmore than just theexistenceofaparticularpatternof thoughtormindset; theysuggestthedownwardmovementofconsciousnessthatwillleadtoever-greatertragedies.

EHRENFELD

To illustrate this notionmore fullywe could do no better than refer toDavidEhrenfeld’sTheArroganceofHumanism.25Partofthebook’sformatechoesthetwo-foldnatureofappliedsciencethatseemsdestinedtorepeat itself timeandagain: aconfidentoutlookat thebeginning is followedby“unforeseen,”oftendisastrous, consequences, demonstrating that science’s self-view is fallacious.Ehrenfeld examines three different areas—mind, body, and environment—inwhichtheapplicationofsciencepromisesfutureimprovement.Inhisanalysis,itcanbeseenhowthestrandsofethicsandbeautyintertwine,bothaffectedbyaconsciousnessarrogantinitsfaithinthemethodologyofquantification.Inthefirstsectionweareshownhowtheapplicationofthismethodologyto

theidentificationandcategorizationofpersonalitytraits,beginningatbirthandextendingthroughyouthtomaturity,wouldassistindetecting“disabilities”and

enablesuitablebehaviourmodificationtoachieve“normality.”And,onalargerscale,weareshownhowmathematicalmodelling,appliedtopastsocialeventslike the American system of slavery, could objectively determine historicalconditions.Thesameprocedureappliedtocurrenteventslikeprisonriotscouldbeusedtopredicttheirfutureoccurrenceandthereforeallowforabehaviouralengineeringoflargegroups.Next, we see that the innate desire of humanity to transcend its own

limitations has been transferred from its long association with the soul’sdevelopment,andre-conceivedinlargelymaterial terms.Thus, theidealofthe“superman” might now be realized through the remodelling of the humanorganism,making it free of sickness, ageing, and even death—bionics, drugs,andgeneticengineeringbeingusefultechniqueshere.Finally,weencounterthedesiretoperfecttheenvironmenttomatchourown

coming“perfection.”Theproblemsofdrought,flood,fire,disease,infertilityofsoils, and limited solar energy, may all be overcome by the mobilization oftechnologicalpoweragainstnaturalforces.And,ifeventhealterationofa“less-than-adequate”planetdoesnotfulfilourdreams,wecouldbuildanidealhabitatinearthorbit,orevenre-designwholeworlds.ForEhrenfeld,thisisthemyth.Thereality,whichheproceedstounfoldinthe

secondsection,bringsthesefantasiestoruin.Theattempttoapplymathematicalsystemstohistoryortohumanbehaviouralwaysentailsasimplificationofwhatgoestomakeupeventsorhumanpersonalities:

Whichnumbersdowechoosefromamongthemillionsthatareavailable?...Whichofaninfinityofpossiblequestionsdoweaskofournumbers,andhow do we know that our numerical manipulations really do ask thequestionsthatwearetryingtohaveanswered?Howcanweknowwhethertheformsofourequationsareautomaticallybiasingandlimitingtherangesofpossiblesolutions?26

Mathematics deals with quantities. Its use in relation to people, who definethemselvesandtheirenvironmentintermsofimprecisequalities,canthereforeneverbeobjective:

Forrealobjectivity,wemustincreaseourperspectiveandbroadenourview,and to do this it is often necessary to ignore claims and counter-claimsconcerning methods, intermediate goals, and theoretical objectives, and

lookexclusivelyat the finalresultsofa technologyorasetofhumanisticbeliefs.27

Forthis“end-productanalysis,”mathematicsorquantificationisofnoavail.Instead,“Thebasicrequirementforsuchananalysisistheabilitytodistinguishshort-termeffectsandobjectivesfromlong-termones,”28atask“moreintuitivethan formal . . . [which] does not demand the services of an expert.”29 Sincetheselong-termeffectsoftenimpingeupontheindefinablequalitiesbywhichwelive,thecriterionfortheultimatesuccessorworthofanyscientificprocedureiswhether these qualities have been either eroded or destroyed, or retained andembellished.Thus,beforeassessingandremodelling“aberrant”behaviourintheyoung,weshouldask:

Whatare“hyperactive”and“minimallybraindamaged”childrenlikewhentheyareallowedtogrowupwithoutstigmatizationorspecifictreatment—not just at age twenty, but until death? Do they share any distinctivepersonalitytraits,dotheyhavethesamesortsoffailuresandachievements,aretheydifferentfromotherpeople?Whatistheirneteffect,asadults,onsociety?Forexample,dotheypromotewarorpeace?...Istheircreativityaffected inanyway?Their ambition?Their capacity for love?Their self-reliance?Theirhappiness?Theirabilitytoresisttyranny?Whatistheirlaterimpactonsociety?Andifwecannotanswerthesequestions—asinfactwecannot—whatarrogancecoupledwithwhatblindnessiscausingustoinflictthisSwiftianedificeoftestinguponourownchildren?30

Quantification applied to group behaviour (such as that of the inmates of aprison)necessitatesthesamedrasticsimplificationofacomplexsystem31,andpromotes the same lack of will to confront the larger picture, in this case tolocate a prison riot within the context of human life as a whole, with all itsconcerns,values,goals,and ideals.Thus,weencounter“aveneerofunusuallysophisticated mathematics applied over the alltoo-common base of ignoranceandcontemptoffellowhumanbeingsintrouble”32Ofthesesimplifiedmodels,Ehrenfeldobserves:

We cannot know and gather in advance all the information that will berelevant, we cannot knowwhat questions to ask of it, and if we did we

couldnotmakeerrorlessdeductions fromwhatweknow. . . . [Therefore,even]ifitcouldwork,whichitcannot,whatisthepointofthis“model”?Isitsodifficulttotellwhenconditionsataprisonarebadenoughtowarrantariot,andifweknowthis,isn’titmoreimportanttochangeconditionsthantowastescarceresourcestryingtofindtheexactmomentwhentheriotwilloccur?33

Intheapplicationofquantifiedsciencetothebody,“theclaimsofpredictingthe unpredictable and of knowing the unknowable, the absolute faith inprocedureswhose end-results can never be comprehended”34 reappear.Yet, ifwe once again apply “end-product analysis” to the technology we use toovercomesickness,wefindthatthistechnologynecessitatesallsortsof“trade-offs.” Our machines and inventions are attempts to augment our capacities.However, they usually satisfy only one or two requirements, while creatingunforeseen consequences. Apart from the fact that they escape the precise fitwiththeirenvironmentthatorganismsdemonstrate—oftenleadingthemtofail—their fundamental flaw lies in their tendency to create residual problems,relatingonceagaintothequalitiesoflife.Wherevertechnologyisusedtoassistbiology (by providing, for example, contact lenses, bionic canes, or artificiallimbsandorgans)wefindthehumanbeingis“lockedinto”anartificialsystem.Through a new reliance on that technology, a person loses independence andconnection with more natural and qualitative ways of living. Therefore, inEhrenfeld’swords,“itwouldbeverydifficult inpractice tomake fundamentalchangesinourbodiesthatwouldbetterequipusforwhatweconsiderlifeasahumantobe.”35The machine is itself a manifestation of the application of quantity to the

world. Initially conceived as amathematically precise object, and rendered inthiswayasimage,itscreationreliesontheexactingcontrolofthedimensionsofthematerialsofwhich it iscomposed.Theemphasisonquantity inherenthereseems toentail—while themachine lives inour imagination—acorrespondingfailuretoseethatitsdefectliespreciselyinitsdenialofquality.“Because,”saysEhrenfeld, “we cannot comprehend the entire value and variety of the humanexperience, we simplify it, proclaiming certain isolated features, ‘engineered’features,tobethebest.”36Ratherthanseethemachineasflawed,weswitchthisroundtoclaimthat“anythingthatamachinecannotdoissuperfluous.”37Hencethecuriousandunjustifiedfaithinthemachineresultsinatendency“toportray

humans as machine-like in their better qualities, rather than the other wayaround.”38Amachineanalogyappliedtoourselvescouldonlyeverbevalidifweignored thegenuinequalities inourselves thatareabsent in them,which isprecisely what we do when we insist on taking account of only quantifiableaspects.Theattempt toescape the limitationsofourbiologybychemicalmeanshas

led to resistant strains of bacteria, necessitating the production of ever morepowerfulantibiotics.Drugsdesignedtoalleviateproblemssuchaspsychologicalstressoftenmaskthesymptomsofanunhealthysocialsystem,orhelptocreateit:

Our acts of diagnosis and treatment themselves cause enough (harmful)reverberationswithinthesystemthattheoriginalpurposefordoingthemisthwarted.. . .Thesocietycleverenoughtoperformsophisticatedresearchon cancer is the society clever enough to invent the sugar substitutes,children’ssleepwearingredients,foodcoloringagents,andswimmingpooltestkitsthatmaycauseit.39

Facedwith such ironies, “the conclusionwemust inescapably reach,” saysEhrenfeld,“isthatourarrogantassumptionsaboutourpresentandfuturecontroloverourbodieshavekeptusfromevaluatingthequalityandtotalconsequencesof that control—[because]we perform no end-product analyses . . . we nevercalculatetherealprice.”40Whenthesenseofqualityisuppermostinourminds,weveryeasilyseethe

follyofourfaithintechnology.Inreferringtothetragicattempttopreservethewindows of Chartres cathedral,41 Ehrenfeld observes: “our ability to ruin theopticalqualityofstainedglasswithsuchefficiencyanddespatchhascomeaboutinanageinwhichstainedglassofthistranscendentbeautyandqualitycannolonger be created.”42 But our environment— the natural world—is full of“transcendent” and equally fragile beauty. In engineering an Aswan dam andtherebyruiningNileagricultureandmarinefertilityorcreatingsalinityandthespread of disease; in manufacturing solar powered pumps that cause fallingwater tables; in attempting to “design” a maximum sustainable yield for onespeciesandsodepletingmanyothers;and inplanningorbitingspacecolonies,we are forever implementing “quasi solutions” to problems which then leave“residualproblems” in theirwake.43 If there isacertain readiness toadmit in

hindsighttotheinappropriateorwronguseofscience,thereisoftennothingtoindicatethatsuchusewillbestemmed,ortopersuadethescientificallymindedagainstyetanotherapplicationof technology toovercomethedamage thathasbeen wrought. In this way age-old beauties of human life, of society, and ofnature are swept away. The epithet of “desert maker” Ehrenfeld uses forhumanity is both literally andmetaphorically true; a retreat to the desert thathumanexistencebecomesinspacecouldonlybecontemplatedbythosewhonolongerhaveaclearvisionoftheEdenbeforethem.44This dulling of vision shows that, rather than an appreciation of ethics and

beautyactingtodirectthecourseofscience,theadvancementofscienceseemsto modify the perception of both, so that what is positively ruled out todaybecomesadmissible tomorrow.Theincremental“progress”ofgeneticresearch,whereethicaldisputesseemtobeviewedassomanyhurdlestobenegotiated;architecturewhichdisplaysmoreandmorecontemptforthetimelessqualitiesofnaturalmaterials andproportions; and theongoing replacement of naturewithartificiallandscapes,supportsthisdictum.Modernscience’sbuilt-inmomentumof discovery,manipulation, and control, combinedwith its ability to “pattern”human consciousness, explains why it has looked—to the perceptive—like adownhilltrend.ForBlakethescientisticmentalitywreaksslowhavocuponthehumansoul,andunethicalpracticesandblindnesstobeautyaretheevidenceofthishavoc.“Newton’sdeadlysleep”expressestheeffectonconsciousnessofthespellofscience.InBlake’svisionofAlbion—hisnativelandasleep—wehavean apt metaphor for a state at the lowest extreme of the vertical dimension:throughmodernscience,wehavebecomeunconscious.

GUÉNON

Visionary though he was, it is doubtful Blake anticipated the true depths towhichthescientisticmentalitycouldtakehumanconsciousness.Guénon,ontheotherhand,byclearlyidentifyingtheessentialnatureofthescientificenterprise,provided an adequate explanation for all that the twentieth century was tomanifest.45InTheReignofQuantityandtheSignsoftheTimes,hepredictstheeventual outcome of the allegiance to quantification or measurement (“thetendency to bring everything down to an exclusively quantitative point ofview”46)thathasbeenafundamentalpartofsciencesincethedaysofGalileo.Thetendency,hewrites,

ismostmarkedinthe“scientific”conceptionsofrecentcenturies;butitisalmost as conspicuous in other domains, notably in that of socialorganization: somuch so that . . . our period could almost be defined asbeingessentiallyandprimarilythe“reignofquantity”.47

However, forGuénon, “quantity itself, towhich [modern science strives] toreduceeverythingis . . .nomorethanthe‘residue’ofanexistenceemptiedofeverythingthatconstituteditsessence.”48Indeed,modernsciencerepresentstherelinquishment of a once clearly understood difference between quality andquantity,oressenceandsubstance.Inalltraditionalmetaphysicsthetwoexistasuniversalprinciples,andthemanifesteduniverseandallentitiesarea“resultantoftheactionexercisedbytheactiveprinciple,Essence,onthepassiveprinciple,Substance.”49ThesetermscorrespondinAristotelianmetaphysicsto“act”and“potency,”and inScholasticphilosophy to formaandmateria.50Substanceor“matter,” conceived of as a thing capable of standing alone is, by thisunderstanding, an impossibility, since that whichmakes a beingwhat it is, isessenceorquality:

Tosaythateverymanifestedbeingisacompositeof“form”and“matter”amounts to saying that its existence necessarily proceeds simultaneouslyfrom bothEssence and Substance, and consequently that there is in eachbeingsomethingcorrespondingbothtotheoneandtotheotherofthesetwoprinciples.51

Hence:

theexplanationofthingsmustnotbesoughtonthesubstantialside,butonthecontraryitmustbesoughtontheessentialside;translatedintotermsofspatialsymbolism,thisisequivalenttosayingthateveryexplanationmustproceedfromabovedownwardsandnotfrombelowupwards.52

Sincemodernsciencecanbedefinedbythelatterapproach,forGuénon,

modern science actually lacks all explanatoryvalue. . . .Anything that isqualitymustnecessarilybe referred toessence. . . .Modernphysicists, intheireffortstoreducequalitytoquantity,havearrivedbyasortof“logicof

error” to the point of confusing the two, and thence to the attribution ofquality itself to their “matter” as such; and they end up by assigning allreality to “matter”, or at least all that they are capable of recognizing asreality:anditisthisthatconstitutes“materialism”properlysocalled.53

Now, it has been shown in both the previous section and in this one thatquantification—measurement—is thecommonbasisofall scientificprocedure,inanyfieldofscience.But,notwithstandingeverythingthathasbeensaidsofar,itmightstillbethoughtthattheworsteffectofquantification—athorough-goingmaterialism—hadreacheditslimitaroundtheturnofthetwentiethcenturywhenthe new physics arose to dispel the myth of discrete entities; that theindeterminacy Heisenberg demonstrated, because it implied a complexinteractionbetweenourperceptionsandtheworld,heraldedamoresophisticatedinterpretationofreality.If,asBohmthought,consciousnesscouldnolongerbeconsidered distinct from the world then perhaps the “elements ofconsciousness”—thequalitiesthatweresupposedtobeonlysubjective,suchasbeauty—mightbere-introducedasacomponentoftheworld.However, despite the potential for a revolution in thought, the process of

quantification which science started has continued to exert its influence. AsGuénon observed, the momentum of Newtonian-Cartesian science has beenremarkablystrong,andtheevidencearoundustodayshowsthatitisstilllargelytheviewpointofthissciencethatprevails.54Sciencecontinuestoobjectifyboththe realmofnature and,most significantly, the realmofhumanconsciousnessitself; and the observed, at least during observation, is still defined by itsmeasurableboundaries.Thenon-measurablequalitiesofnatureandthequalitiesof the human being have continued to be stripped from any identity with anessenceof the sortGuénon refers to, and instead assigned a new status as thenebulousproductofmatter.Andsincequalitiesaretheattributesofentitiesthatmake them different one from another, to “downgrade” them in favour ofquantity is, knowingly or otherwise, to attempt to make entities more alike.Thus,forGuénon,

Amereglanceatthingsastheyareisenoughtomakeitclearthattheaimiseverywheretoreduceeverythingtouniformity,whetheritbehumanbeingsthemselvesorthethingsamongwhichtheylive,anditisobviousthatsucha result can only be obtained by suppressing as far as possible every

qualitativedistinction.55

To what extent can this statement be supported? In physics itself, theundisguised aim is to reduce the world conceptually to a structure entirelymathematicalinform—purequantity.56Ifthisinvolvedonlythewishtodesignanabstract“TheoryofEverything,”afinalneatequationtodescribeeverythingofanempiricalnature,wewouldhavelittle tofear.However, thediscoveryofthis“glitteringcentralmechanism”57reliesonfarmorethanabstractreasoningcould provide. The seemingly innocuous, even “heroic,” ongoing attempt atdiscoveringthebasisofmatterisinextricablyboundupwithapracticalmethodthat is more certainly “dissolving” in character. The long absorption inquantification has driven a machine technology of increasing sophistication,power,andmanipulativecapacity.Eachlevelofinvention,basednowonsubtlerunderstandingsofchemistryandphysicshasalloweda“ratcheting-up”ofthesecharacteristics. Today, computing ability (again, pure number) combined withthe application of materials technology has given a level of control andmanipulation of the world that may be just a step away from an actualdissolution of nature. Nuclear technology, nano technology, and genetechnology, because they may instigate processes that become uncontrollable,are the“cuttingedge” in theapplicationofscience that threatens tocleave theworldasunder.58In the human sphere, faith in scientific demonstration has succeeded in

reducingourownnature toaparodyofwhat itwas.Recourse tomeasurementhasrelegatedhumanitytothestatusofbeingsthatcanbedefinedcompletelyintermsofmatter andpsyche.Moreover, an assumedequivalencebetweenmindandbrainhasmeantthatthepsycheitselfhasbornthebruntofmeasurementandis now studied from a biological perspective. The discovery of the DNAmolecule, and then the sequencing of the human and other genomes in recentyears, has provided an enduring contemporary view of what represents theessential inhumans, and thegrowingbelief thatmost humanproclivities havetheirorigininaparticulargeneticmake-up.Variousexceptionalqualitiesaresettooneside in theattempt tofind thebasisofbehaviour,motivation,emotions,reasoning, and even religious and spiritual “experience” in the structure ofmoleculesandinthechemicalandelectricalactivityofthebrain.Awillingnesstoassumeareductionistviewpointhasmeantthat,incomparing

ourselveswithotherspecies,wehaveconcentratedonwhatiscommon,noton

whatisdifferent,59despitethistypeofcomparisonbeingallbutmeaningless.60

Sincemostofthequalitativedifferenceofhumansisfoundinconsciousness,61theattempttomakeaquantifiableequivalentofthesequalitiesistoreducethesignificance or importance of such qualities. It is to conceal or suppress thesequalitative distinctions. Ultimately, it is to consciously ignore aspects ofconsciousness. Clearly, this is a recipe for their eventual disappearance overtime.62This is sobecausehere, as inmost formsof reductionism,wearenotbeingpermittedaneutralsurveyofanalternative;weare,instead,directedalonga particular path of thought by being continuously asked to adopt a particularand limited view of ourselves. Once we cease to see ourselves as qualitativebeings,wearereadytoimbibeawholerangeofideasthathaveastheirbasistheconcentrationonmeasurableaspects:

Themoderntendencytosimplification...naturallyalwaysoperatesbythereduction of things to their most inferior elements, and so asserts itselfchiefly by the suppression of the entire supra-individual domain, inanticipationofbeingablelaterontobringeverythingthatisleft,thatistosay, everything in the individual order, down to the sensible or corporealmodality alone, and finally that modality itself to a mere aggregation ofquantitativedeterminations.Itiseasytoseehowrigorouslythesestepsarelinkedtogether,soastoconstituteasitweresomanynecessarystagesinacontinuous “degradation”of the conceptionswhichman formsof himselfandoftheworld.63

WecaninterpretthispassageofGuénon’sbybringingtomindtheoperationof the various disciplines that represent the application of scientificconsciousness (quantification) to humanity: physics, chemistry, biology,anthropology, sociology, psychology, and economics—areas of thoughtwhich,taken together, largely define an anti-traditional “modernism.” Crucially, thisengagement with quantification affects consciousness over time. Changingethicalstandardsmaynowbeseenastheoutcomeofamovementawayfromtheaffirmation of timeless qualities (that cannot be measured) towards theacceptanceasrealofonlymeasurablethings.Theyareanoutwardindicatorofwhat is takingplace “within.”Thehumanmind, persuaded as it is bymodernscience toadoptapatternof thought that is rationalandquantitative,becomesprey to thatverymodeofconsciousness, so that the tendencybecomesdeeply

entrenched. One of the outcomes is that the process of greater and greateralignmentwithquantificationgoesunrecognized.Eachsuccessivestageseemsareasonable step to take.Any controversy surroundingprevious steps is largelyforgotten, so there isnopossibilityofeverassessing thewholeprocess, in thesense of adopting the outlook of the past and studying the future (now thepresent)with the sort of vision thatwaspreviously thenorm.The exampleofmedical intervention, not to say genetic engineering, is pertinent here. It doesindeed take an effort of will to appreciate our current position from theperspectiveofthepast.Weknowthatearliergenerationswereoftenimplacablyopposed to organ transplants or in vitro fertilization, or the first geneticmanipulations, or the patenting of genes, but find it nearly impossible not todismisstheiroutlookasunnecessarilycautious.Wecanevenbepersuadedthatethics somehowadvances and that the ethicsof thepast isno longer relevant.Yet to suggest that ethics is somalleable as to eventually allow practices thatalmostnoonealive todaywouldcountenance, lendssupport toGuénon’sviewthatwearedealingwithacatastrophicchangeinconsciousnessitself.64The prolonged attempt at creating equivalence between the world and the

measurementoftheworld,haseventuallyledtoamoderneconomictheorythatreflectsthebeliefthattheworldandhumanlifecanultimatelyberepresentedbyamonetaryvalue.65Wherecommonsense,orconcernforethics,orthewishtoretainqualitiesinnaturelikebeauty,mightbethoughttooverridethisviewpoint,the reality is that it often does not. Hence, individuals, organizations,corporations,andgovernmentsarepreparedtosacrificevariousqualities intheenvironmentandinthehumansphereinexchangeforthis“important”quantity.This tendency is perhaps themost telling example of scientific quantificationhaving influenced human consciousness. Neither ethics nor aesthetics haveentirelydisappeared;rathertheinfluenceofquantificationissopervasivethatitworkstooverridethesefactors.Inthelightoftheabove,thetemptationtoimaginethat,althoughthescientific

tradition exists there is nothing to prevent us re-assessing it and, if we wish,rejecting it, is seen to be erroneous, because it presumes an ability to see itobjectively in the first place. But of course, if our consciousness has beenchangedthroughlong-termconformitytoscientificprinciples,couldweseeanalternative if itwaspresented,orwouldwedismiss it?Guénonexpresseswellwhat happens when the quantification of consciousness becomes a self-perpetuatingstate:

Thereare some things thatcanneverbegraspedbymenof learningwhoarematerialistsorpositivists,andthisnaturallyfurtherconfirmstheirbeliefinthevalidityoftheirconceptionsbyseemingtoaffordasortofnegativeproofofthem,whereasitisreallyneithermorenorlessthanadirecteffectoftheconceptionsthemselves.66

Concentrationonthemodalityofquantificationandmaterialismengendersa“conditioning”process,wherebyaself-fulfillingprophecyofthe“real”occurs.Consciousnessisturnedbackuponitselfandconfined,byitsownself-imposedmode of operation, to a limited sphere that defines both its own world andnecessarilytheworldaroundit.

FOOTNOTES

1 See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1977).2“Ithink,”saysHawking,“thatthereisagoodchancethatthestudyoftheearlyuniverse and the requirements of mathematical consistency will lead us to acompleteunifiedtheorywithinthelifetimeofsomeofuswhoarearoundtoday”(StephenHawking,ABriefHistoryofTime[London:Bantam,1988],p.167).3Bohm,atheoreticalphysicistandphilosopher,developedideastoospeculativetobeacceptedbymainstreamphysics.Yet,asoneof the“maverick”scientistswho departed fromorthodoxy in order to forge links betweenmodern scienceandmetaphysics,Bohm represents anecessarymovement away from the (stilllargelyunrecognized)impassethatsciencehasreached.4DavidBohm,WholenessandtheImplicateOrder,p.9.5Bohm,WholenessandtheImplicateOrder,p.6.6Bohm,WholenessandtheImplicateOrder,p.4.7Bohm,WholenessandtheImplicateOrder,p.4,emphasisadded.8 SeeKarl Popper,TheLogic of ScientificDiscovery (NewYork:Harper andRow,1959).9Bohmquoted in JohnP.Briggs andF.David Peat,LookingGlassUniverse(Glasgow:Fontana,1984),p.104.10Bohm,WholenessandtheImplicateOrder,pp.7-8,emphasisadded.

11Bohm,WholenessandtheImplicateOrder,p.3.12Bohm,WholenessandtheImplicateOrder,p.11.13Bohm,WholenessandtheImplicateOrder,pp.9and11.14When Kant claimed that “all human cognition of the world is channelledthroughthehumanmind’scategories”(Tarnas,ThePassionoftheWesternMind,p.343),hepropheticallypre-emptedtheeventualconclusionofscience.Yetthebleak prospect, in which we are forever unable to experience reality as it is,becausewearedoggedby thenecessarilyhumanand therefore limitedmentalconstruct we take to the world, stems from a belief in reason being the pre-eminenthumanfaculty.Tothereasoningmind,metaphysicsseemsspeculative;itspronouncementstakeontheappearanceofpropositionsthatcanaseasilybenegated as affirmed. For Hume the only certain propositions were those of anon-sensory nature, and they were, anyway, deductive, necessary andtautological. Inductive propositions, those related to phenomenal experience,maynotprovidecertainknowledge(sincecausalitycouldnotbeproved),yettheempiricalmethodasundertakenby the thinking subject seemed tobe theonlylegitimatemeans to approach reality.Kant agreed that phenomenal experienceprovidedtheonly legitimateknowledge,but re-imposedaformofcertaintybyworking past supposed “naive” realism (which accepts that the perception ofphenomenacorrespondstothephenomenalworld),andproducingtheideaofaprioricategories,orpredispositionsofthemind.Theperceptionofthestructureof theworld is then explained by the structure of themind.But this structuredoes not necessarily have any ultimate relation to theworld.Thus, “Kant hadrejoinedtheknowertotheknown,butnottheknowertoanyobjectivereality,totheobject in itself.Knowerandknownwereunited,as itwere, inasolipsisticprison”(Tarnas,ThePassionoftheWesternMind,p.348).Anescapefromthisprisonreliesonrecognizingthatthisveryprocessofreasoningisitselfoperatinglikeaconsciouscategory,imposingitsownoutlookontheminditself,andsetsupa typeof circular reinforcementof itsownvalidity. IfKant’s logic is itselfrestrictedtothesphereofthismethod,anyconclusionnecessarilypertainsonlywithinthissphere,notoutsideit.Kantwassatisfiedhehaddisposedofvarioustheologicalproofs.But, forSchuon,“the ideasof[the]‘GreatSpirit’andof theprimacy of the Invisible are natural to man. . . . What is natural to humanconsciousnessprovesipsofactoitsessentialtruth,thereasonfortheexistenceofintelligencebeingadequation to thereal. . . .Wehaveheardsomeonesay thatthe wings of birds prove the existence of air, and that in the same way the

religiousphenomenon,commonapriori toallpeoples,proves theexistenceofitscontent,namelyGodandtheafter-life;whichistothepointifonetakesthetrouble to examine the argument in depth” (Schuon, From the Divine to theHuman,p.6).15 It is evident that Bohm was aware of both the paradox and the need totranscend it in someway. Inhis latteryears,hepromotedaparticular formof“dialogue”—the exchange of thoughts and ideas free of judgments ordefensiveness—tohelpbreakthroughtheparadox.“Dialogue”canbeseenasanexercise inheighteningconsciousawarenessof theprocessesofconsciousnessitself, anattempt to freeus froma rigidityof thinking, evenescape thenetofconceptualizationsaltogether.16PhilipSherrard,“TheScienceofConsciousness,”TheScientificandMedicalNetworkNewsletter48(1992):pp.5-7.17Sherrard,HumanImage:WorldImage,p.35.18Sherrard,HumanImage:WorldImage,p.36.19Sherrard,HumanImage:WorldImage,p.3.20 For Nasr, “One of the great tragedies of the modern world is that thedominantparadigm...hasdivorcedethicsfrommetaphysicsandcosmologysothat, within its framework, to speak of the sanctity of life and the ethicallyimmoral character of the destruction of the sacred is viewed as meresentimentality, subjectivismorpoetry—notasapositiongrounded inobjectiveknowledge” (Nasr, “Man and Nature: Quest for Renewed Understanding,” p.10).21Itisworthremindingourselvesthatitwasnotsolongagothatthesacrednessof even the human corpsemeant the prohibition of its dissection. Because ofthis, the Renaissance artists, Leonardo and Michelangelo, were forced into acautiousandsecretivestudyofhumananatomy.Bycontrast,theroutinemodernautopsycan involve the removalor re-useof,evenexperimentingwith,bodilyorgans. In connection with the potentially devastating Earth-scale weathermodification experimentation by civil and military organizations, see, forexample, Rosalie Bertell, Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War (London:Women’sPress,2000).22Einsteinclearlyfeltanguishoveritsuse,though,onceproclaiming:“IfonlyIhad known I should have become a watchmaker” (New Statesman, April 16,1965).

23J.RobertOppenheimer,inalectureatMassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,November25,1947.24 Peter Davies, “Mururoa: How Safe are the French Tests?” (Quantumtelevisiondocumentary,AustralianBroadcastingCorporation,August23,1995).25 David Ehrenfeld, The Arrogance of Humanism (New York: OxfordUniversityPress,1981).26Ehrenfeld,TheArroganceofHumanism,pp.69-70.27Ehrenfeld,TheArroganceofHumanism,p.59,emphasisadded.28Ehrenfeld,TheArroganceofHumanism,p.63.29Ehrenfeld,TheArroganceofHumanism,p.63.30Ehrenfeld,TheArroganceofHumanism,p.74.31 The model applied—catastrophe theory—“can handle only two controlvariables and one behaviour variable. So a social system of quite remarkablecomplexitymust be simplified almost out of existence” (JonathanRosenhead,“PrisonControlandCatastropheTheory,”NewScientist72[1976]:p.120).32Ehrenfeld,TheArroganceofHumanism,pp.75-6.33Ehrenfeld,TheArroganceofHumanism,pp.76-77.34Ehrenfeld,TheArroganceofHumanism,p.77.35Ehrenfeld,TheArroganceofHumanism,p.85,emphasisadded.36Ehrenfeld,TheArroganceofHumanism,p.118.37Ehrenfeld,TheArroganceofHumanism,p.102.38Ehrenfeld,TheArroganceofHumanism,p.100.39Ehrenfeld,TheArroganceofHumanism,pp.90-91.40Ehrenfeld,TheArroganceofHumanism,p.87.41In1974,someofthethirteenthcenturystainedglassofChartres,endangeredbyairpollution,wascoatedwithasyntheticprotectivefilm.Subsequentlyitwasfoundthat“thelightthatfellfromthethreerestoredwindowshadturnedasflatand insensitive as that dispensed by ordinary tinted glass” (Pierre Schneider,“OpticsatChartresReportedRuined,”NewYorkTimes,January1,1977).42Ehrenfeld,TheArroganceofHumanism,pp.105-6.43ForRenéDubos,“Developingcountertechnologies tocorrect thenewkinds

ofdamageconstantlybeingcreatedby technological innovations isapolicyofdespair. If we follow this course we shall increasingly behave like huntedcreatures,fleeingfromoneprotectivedevicetoanother,eachmorecostly,morecomplex, andmore undependable than the one before;we shall be concernedchieflywith shelteringourselves fromenvironmentaldangerswhile sacrificingthe values that make life worth living” (Dubos quoted in Ehrenfeld, TheArroganceofHumanism,p.108).44 Ehrenfeld observes: “People in space are diminished people, out of theirancient, inherited, and supremely beautiful context. And like anything rippedfrom context, there is no point to them” (Ehrenfeld, The Arrogance ofHumanism,p.124).45Guénon(1886-1951)andBlakesharethesamemetaphysicalinfluence,bothbeing exposed to Indian thought. They also share the desire to propagate an“antidote.” But while Blake’s poetic sensibility appeals to those of likeinclination, the writings of Guénon, who stands alongside AnandaCoomaraswamy as a clear progenitor of a re-emergentmetaphysical tradition,may be thought more apposite to the highly “intellectual” climate prevalenttoday.46Guénon,TheReignofQuantityandtheSignsoftheTimes,p.9.47Guénon,TheReignofQuantity,pp.9-10.48Guénon,TheReignofQuantity,p.13.49Guénon,TheReignofQuantity,p.20.50 Guénon makes it clear thatmateria is not the same as the modern term“matter,” since it includes bothmateria prima andmateria secunda.Materiaprima is Universal substance, which itself acts to informmateria secunda orrelative substance. A clear comparison can be made here with the SanskritPrakrtiwhich is thequalifiedPurusha, but itself acts to informmanifestation.“Substance,” fromsubandstare, “thatwhich standsbeneath,” thusbecomes amoreaccurate translationof theScholasticmateria.SeeGuénon,TheReignofQuantity,chapterII.51Guénon,TheReignofQuantity,p.20.52Guénon,TheReignofQuantity,pp.26-27.53Guénon,TheReignofQuantity,pp.27and28.54ForKathleenRaine, it is the“cosmology. . .which, imaginatively,modern

Westernmancontinues to inhabit”(Raine,“TheVerticalDimension,”Temenos13 [1992]: p. 203). Normally one might point to the “lag time” between theintroduction of a new “paradigm” and its eventual assimilation. However, itseemsthesophisticatednatureofquantumscience,combinedwiththewaythatthe old has acted tomodify consciousness,means that itwill probably remainoutsidetheorbitofgeneralunderstandingoracceptance.55Guénon,TheReignofQuantity,p.61.Thefatalistic tenorof thisparagraphstems from the fact that Guénon, steeped in Indian metaphysics and itsconceptionofcyclictime,recognizedintheadventofscientificquantificationatrend inherentwithin themovement of cycles. In this view,modern science ispartofaninevitablehistoricalprocessanddoesnotsomuchcreatethementalityof the times as reflect it. See chapter V, “The Qualitative Determinations ofTime”inGuénon,TheReignofQuantity.56Chaostheory,becauseitsoughttodealwithcomplexity,flux,anddisorderinsuchareasasmeteorology,ecology,andeconomics,wasinitiallyinterpretedasachallenge to determinism and reductionism. However, its non-linearmathematicalequationswereinfactabletodescriberegularitybeneathapparentdisorder.57ThisphraseofJohnWheeler’s(qualifiedbyhisowndoubtastothecapacityof science to uncover such a mechanism), captures the popular romanticizedview of the scientific enterprise. We are meant to imagine science beingresponsibleforfindingextraordinaryinnerbeautyintheworld.Infact,whatisfound is uncovered by tearing away that very mantle which is, by commonconsent,thebeautythatclothestheworld.58Inastartlinginterviewin2000,BillJoy, thefounderofSunMicrosystems,conceded: “It is far easier to create destructive uses for nanotechnology thanconstructiveones...[andso]weareonthecuspofextremeevil,anevilwhosepossibility spreads well beyond that which weapons of mass destructionbequeathedtothenationstates,ontoasurprisingandterribleempowermentofextremeindividuals”(BillJoyquotedinZacGoldsmith,“DiscomfortandJoy,”TheEcologistVol.30,No.7[2000]:pp.36and39).Inascenarioreminiscentofthealmostcheerfullycomplacentdaysofthedevelopmentoftheatomicbomb,ithas been conceded that the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), capable ofacceleratingprotonstoclosetoc,couldcreateablackholethatwouldgrowbyswallowing the matter around it. While even CERN acknowledges thepossibilityofblackholecreation(inJ.P.Blaizot,J.Iliopoulos,J.Madsen,G.G.

Ross,P.Sonderegger,andH.J.Specht,“StudyofPotentiallyDangerousEventsDuring Heavy-Ion Collisions at the LHC: Report of the LHC Safety StudyGroup,” 2003, CERN), it presumes they would decay by thermal processes(“Hawking Radiation”). However, several physicists question the existence orthe applicability of this hypothetical radiation. See, for example, A.D.Helfer,“Doblackholesradiate?”ReportsonProgressinPhysicsVol.66,No.6[2003]:pp. 943-1008; W.G. Unruh and R. Schützhold, “On the Universality of theHawking Effect” Physics Review D 71 [2005]; and V.A. Belinski, “On theexistence of quantum evaporation of a black hole,”Physics Letters A 209(1)[1995]:pp.13-20.59 Ecophilosophy, we have seen, has inherited this approach and sees theessential commonality of species as supporting ecocentrism.But, interestingly,thewordfor“species”inGreekisthesameasthatusedfor“form”—eidos;andso,asGuénonpointsout,“species isproperlyspeakinganatureoranessencecommontoanindefinitemultitudeofindividuals.Specificnatureisofapurelyqualitativeorder,foritistruly‘innumerable’inthestrictsenseoftheword,thatis to say it is independent of quantity, being indivisible and entire in everyindividual belonging to the species” (Guénon, The Reign of Quantity, p. 22,emphasisadded).Thus,attemptingcomparisonsofspeciesbyappealingonlytotraits thataremeasurable is tobetraythequalitativemeaningof“species,”andreduceittoquantity.Furthermore,a“species[can]innowaybeconceivedasa‘collectivity’, thelatterbeingnothingbutanarithmetical totalof individuals;a‘collectivity’ is, unlike species, entirely quantitative” (Guénon, The Reign ofQuantity,pp.60-61).60Thecomicaldiscoveryinmolecularbiologyoftheclosegeneticsimilarityofhumansandpotatoes,orthefindingthathumansandchickensmaybepairedasthe closest relatives (New Scientist Vol. 103 [August 16, 1984]: p. 19) onlyserves to underscore the point made in a lecture by Bronowski when B.F.Skinner’s experiments first inspired thebehaviourist school of psychology: “Ifeverythingthatwehavetoknowaboutourselvesisstuffthatwecangetfromtherats, why aren’t the rats in here and why aren’t we scurrying in thewainscoting?” (JacobBronowski,TheOrigins of Knowledge and Imagination[NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1978],p.8).61Theimportanceofthisfactisnotlostonthescientificmentality.Theattemptto explain what the universe is must take account of the role of the veryconsciousness that attempts such explanation. In this connection see, for

example,PaulDavies,TheMindofGod(London:Penguin,1992),chapter9.62 In the social sphere, a tendency to obliterate the qualitative distinctionbetween individuals is seen in the workings of modern political systems.AlthoughMarxism is an obvious example here,Guénon rightly points out theway in which democracy, by also emphasizing equality amongst individuals,must downplay evidence of the inequality of human traits. In this context,universaleducationis“wellfittedtosuppressineveryoneallpossibilitiesabovethecommonlevel”(Guénon,TheReignofQuantity,p.66).63Guénon,TheReignofQuantity,p.111.64Pre-modernhistoryrecordsmanyexamplesofunethicalbehaviouramongstpeople,butusuallyagainstabackgroundofgeneralrespectforhumandiversity,whichprevented theextremesof intolerancewe see today.Empirical evidencefor this can be found in the existence, side by side for centuries, of church,mosque, synagogueand temple.Thereexisted, too,examplesof theaccidentalmistreatmentof theEarth,butnoexamplesequivalent to“deliberatelyblastingitsgutsout,”toborrowSherrard’sphrase.65 Theword “value” heremust be considered amisnomer, since to representthings in terms of money is to substitute values or qualities with abstractquantity. For Edward Goldsmith, the present economic paradigm creates theillusion that “all benefits, and therefore our welfare and our real wealth, arederivedfromtheman-madeworld;thismeans,ineffect,thattheyaretheproductofscience,technologyandindustry,andoftheeconomicdevelopmentthatthesemake possible” (Edward Goldsmith, The Way: An Ecological Worldview[London:RandomCentury,1992],p.xiii).Alternatively,ifthebenefitsprovidedby the planet’s functioning are recognized, the attempt to represent them ineconomic terms leads only to parody: “In 1997 a team of biologists andeconomiststriedtoputavalueonthe‘businessservices’providedbynature—the free pollination of crops, the air conditioning provided bywild plants, therecycling of nutrients by the oceans. They came up with an estimate of $33trilliondollars”(TimRadford,“Mostofworld’sresources‘usedup,’”GuardianWeekly, April 8-14, 2005, p. 8). Making such a comparison only serves toreinforceasenseofthevalidityofquantification,andconfoundwhatisjustanabstractconceptwiththeveryrealphenomenonthatistheEarthsystem,whichcouldneverbereplicatedbyusanyway.66Guénon,TheReignofQuantity,p.146.

CHAPTEREIGHT

Ascent

In thecastleofhuman intellectualendeavour,modernist thoughthas tended toretreat to one room, shuttingmany doors behind it. In this room of empiricalmethodbasedonquantification thereare“windows” to theoutsideworld, andfromwithinwemayviewnatureandpointout itsattributes.Wearepersuadedthatweknowitaswellasispossible.Itsultimaterealitycannotbeexperienced;its“essence”mustremainunknown,since the“glass”ofourownsubjectivismseparatesusfromthatworld.Thereare,itismaintained,tworealities:theworld,andourexperienceoftheworld.Thevoicesofthosewhotestifytotheexistenceofotherrooms(otherwaysof

knowing),orsuggesttheremightstillbeaway“outside,”byreferringtoTruth,GoodnessorBeautyasnotmerelyhuman ideasbutessentialaspectsof realitywhichmightreconciletheapparentduality,aremarginalized.Inacademia—the“SchoolsandUniversities”Blake lamented—ithas longbeenunfashionable tosubscribe to “outdated” metaphysics, or appeal to past authority. A belief inintellectualprogresshasmeantanavoidanceofallthatseemsahindrancetotheforwardmomentumofhumanthought.1Confinement within this one “room” might remain a fait accompli. But a

retreattosucharoominthefirstplacerequirestheexistenceofadoorwaythatwill lead out again. And in the context of the current metaphor the doorwaycannot lead other than back into the corridor of consciousness, for it isconsciousness itself that remains the sine qua non of any intellectual positionwhatsoever,andcertainlyofmodernscience.Asthepreviouschapterrevealed,arecentversionof the scientificparadigm—quantumphysics—hasbeenobligedtoaccepttheineluctableroleofconsciousnessintheresponsesthatnaturegivesto our empirical investigations. Andwhile this has often been interpreted, bythose who do science, to demonstrate the limitations of consciousness to anunderstandingoftherealitythatscienceendeavourstoreveal,thisisnottheonlypossibledeductionfromthefacts.Itisjustassensibletoreversewhatisreallyaparticular mental ordering that science qua science takes. Such an inversionmeanswearenolongerattemptingtolookatconsciousnessasthoughitcouldbemadeanobjectiveelementoftheparadigm.Consequently,wearenolongerlooking at the limitation of consciousness to know reality, but rather at the

limitationsofthescientificparadigm,the“reality”ofwhichisbeinglimitedbyaparticularformofconsciousness.Inthisalternativeview,consciousnesscannotbe the objective or passive witness to a particular worldview; rather,consciousness is composed of—or,more accurately, is commensuratewith—aparticular worldview, in this case the world that science takes to be real (thequantified world). Far from the scientific paradigm being able to defineconsciousness, the scientific paradigm is a reflection of a particular form ofconsciousness.Anescapefromthepositionwefindourselvesin,then—areturnthroughthe

“doorway”—cannot be made through an appeal to the same type ofconsciousness already operating (the scientific, quantifying one which, inseekingtoapplymeasurementtothings, isstructuredbythisveryprocess,andbecomesasitwere“quantified”),butonlythroughanon-quantifyingdimensionofconsciousness.Now,itmaybesurmisedthatifweshiftourfocusfromthoseaspectsof things thatcanbequantifiedormeasured, to thosewhichcannotbequantifiedormeasured,wewillbedisengagingfromtheaspectofconsciousnessthat deals with quantification—analytical or discursive thought, or rationality(the quintessence of the scientific consciousness)—and engaging with theusually dormant elements that lie outside the boundaries of quantifyingconsciousness. A focus on qualities that resist adequate description throughquantification, then, will be expressive of a non-quantifying—or qualifying—consciousness. Consciousness that is structured by the perception of thesequalities may be termed “qualified consciousness” and it is this mode ofconsciousnessthatisthekeytoarestorationoftheverticaldimension.

RAINE

As the Blake scholar Kathleen Raine observed, “Of Plato’s three verities, theGood, the True and the Beautiful, none can be understood in terms of thematerialist values of modern Western civilization, and beauty least of all.”2

Precisely because beauty defies measurement,3 while, at the same time, it isgrantedalmostuniversalassent,beautyisthequalityperhapsmostsuitedtoactasacatalyst for“qualifying”consciousness. In turning to thecontemplationofbeauty,wearenowturningtofacetheupwardmovementofconsciousness.Theperceptionofbeautycanbeunderstood in the lightofastatementonce

madebyAldousHuxley:

Knowledgeisafunctionofbeing.Whenthereisachangeinthebeingofthe knower, there is a corresponding change in the nature and amount ofknowing....Thebeingofachildistransformedbygrowthandeducation....Amongtheresultsofthistransformationisarevolutionarychangeinthewayofknowingandtheamountandcharacterofthethingsknown.4

However, the transformationofbeingmust itself bedependenton the formofknowingtowhichweareinitiallysubject.Whenaparticularformofknowing—scientific, or quantifying consciousness—sets limits onwhat can be perceivedandwhatcanbeknown,itmustactasarestrictiononconsciousdevelopment.Inrelationtobeauty, itwouldleadtoaformofblindness.WemayrecallBlake’sfamouschidingofhisemployerwhoaccusedhimofaninaccuratedepictionoftheworld:

IseeEverythingIpaintInThisWorld,butEverybodydoesnotseealike.To theEyesofaMiseraGuinea ismorebeautiful than theSun,&abagwornwith the use ofMoney hasmore beautiful proportions than aVinefilledwithGrapes.ThetreewhichmovessometotearsofjoyisintheEyesofothersonlyaGreenthingwhichstandsintheway....Asamanis,Sohesees. As the Eye is formed, such are its Powers. You certainlyMistake,whenyousaythattheVisionsofFancyarenottobefoundinThisWorld.ToMeThisWorldisallOnecontinuedVisionofFancyorImagination.5

Blakeclaimsavisionthatisneithersubjectivenorunique,butindicativeofastateofconsciousnesstheparticipationinwhichallowsanincreasedperceptionofbeauty.6Thefollowinglinesbeartestimonybothtothehierarchicalnatureofthisvisionandtothestultifyingeffectofremainingundertheswayofquantifiedconsciousness:

NowIafourfoldvisionsee,Andafourfoldvisionisgiventome,’TisfourfoldinmysupremedelightAndthreefoldinsoftBeulah’snightAndtwofoldAlways.MayGoduskeepFromSinglevision&Newton’ssleep.7

Awareofhowthatlattervisionhaspredominated,andthatwenow“liveina

world to which the very notion of a hierarchy of states of consciousness, isalien,”8Rainecanstillfind,inthehonouraccordedtothepoet,

acertain remoteechoof thatage-oldbelief that thepoet is ‘inspired’.Anhonourduetopoetryonlywhen,andinsofaras,itdoes,inameasure,aspiretoparticipation ina sacredvisionof theWord that is ‘withGod’,on thatverticalladderwhichhasinourtimeforthemostpartbeenlost.9

TospeakthusofDivinityistoberemindedoftheepiphanicvisionofnatureto which the Romantic poets gave assent. To experience nature as supremelybeautifulistoseenatureunveiledthroughtheunveilingofconsciousness.Suchavisionisnotuncommon:“therearesurelyfew...whohavenotatsometimeseen the simplest things ‘apparel’d in celestial light’—in the phrase of . . .ThomasTraherne,forwhomalsothesimplestpebblesonthepathwereradiantwiththatlight.”10Raineconfirmsthat,inspeakingof“a‘verticaldimension’...whatisatissueisnotanyquestionof‘anotherworld’butthemannerinwhichwe experience this one.”11When nature appearswithout lustre, “it is not thepebblesorthetreesthathavechanged:itiswewhonolongerparticipateinthatlightofvision.”12ForRaine, the increasingabsenceof thatvisionofnature todayparallels the

increasingexpressionofscientificconsciousness.Quantifiedconsciousness(asithasbeentermed)demonstratesmomentumanddirection,andthisisbecause,incontinually reinforcing its own quantitative content and continually lesseningany qualitative content, it is continually reinforcing itself. While the clearestevidence for thismay be the ongoing change in the ethical stance adopted bythosewhodo scienceorwho are exposed to the scientificworldview, there isalso the matter of the simplification of conscious experience and consciousexpression.ThelinesbyColeridgethatrefertothethingsofnatureas

ThelovelyshapesandsoundsintelligibleOfthateternallanguage,whichthyGodUtters,whofrometernitydothteachHimselfinall,andallthingsinhimself.13

andwhichtestifythattheDivinepresenceisrevealedthroughthe“language”ofnature, are opaque to science. Having little allegiance to qualities, quantified

consciousness reduces the ontological status of the experiences or perceptionsthat cannot be quantified (such as those of beauty and its prolongation, thesacred).Justassignificantly,becausethesequalities—towhichthelanguageofpoetry and scripture refer—aredivestedofontological reality, that language isnolongertiedtoanythingsubstantialandsoisitselfremodelledbythelanguageof quantification.14 Support for this interpretation may be found in Raine’saccount of the effect of “materialist scientism” on the time-honoured field ofpoetry:

Throughout the nineteenth century descriptive verse, and painting whichreproduced natural appearances with minute and photographic accuracyabounded.Muchofthiscontinuedtopresentthenaturalworldaspleasingtobehold,continuingunquestionedearlierschoolswhichhadheldbeautytobeasupremevalue.Nowbeautyisawordscarcelyused,forwhatmeaninghasthewordinthecontextoftheneutralityofnature,unrelatedtothevitalform-creatingpowerofImagination?Wehaveseen theemergencefirstof‘social realism’ and thenof a grimmer realismof poets andpainterswhohave ceased to discover beauty in nature or in human nature. There hasemergedaschoolofwritersandpainterswhodescribeappearancesnot toenhance,but todislimn,not adiscoverybut adenialof form,beautyandmeaning....Thesongofbirdshasbeenasourceofdelighttopoetsfromthe troubadours toChaucer, from thenightingalesofPersia toKeats. . . .Nowchildren’sschoolbookscontainpoemsinformingthemthatthevoicesof birds are not a song but a scream; it is deemedmore ‘honest’ to notenature’swartsandblemishesthantoobserveitsdailypanoramaofsunandmoon,cloudsandstars,birdsandtreesastheepiphaniclanguageofalivingmystery.15

The belief in a more “honest” treatment of nature is the belief of aconsciousness in sympathy with the ontology of a science that first instils apropensity towards the perception of nature as outward (quantified) form, andthen treats this particular perception as if it were independent of humaninterpretation.16But the straightforward languageofmuchmodern poetry, forwhichnatureissimply“anobjecttobedescribed,”isitselfalanguagereflectinga mode of consciousness. Hence, while the figurative language common toRomanticpoetry(whichseemstoreplacean“unadulterated”formwithsymbol

andmetaphor)mayappearatfirstadishonestrepresentationofwhatnatureis,itactuallyreflectsagreaterawarenessoftheroleofconsciousnessinperception.Thus,

WhenWordsworthwrote“’Tismybeliefthateveryflowerenjoystheairitbreathes”hewasnot indulging inpoeticmake-believe,but affirming thatnature is a living presence, as other cultures have held as a self-evidenttruth.Asindeeditis,ifnotmatterbutspirit,nottheobjectperceivedbuttheperceiving consciousness, be taken as the ground of reality aswe beholdandexperienceit.17

Toacknowledge the roleplayedbyconsciousness, is to see that theknowercannotbeseparatedfromwhattheknownis;andthespeciallanguageofpoetryexpresses this truth. But more: poetic language is imbued with its ownmetamorphicquality.ForDante,therewerefourpossiblemeaningsofaworkofart: the literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical.18 Viewed as an ascendinghierarchy, the presence in a poem of the anagogical, mystical, or esotericmeaningisafunctionofthepoet’sownparticipationinthecorrespondinglevelofconsciousperception.Inotherwords,“itisviathefacultyoftheIntellectthatthepoetreceivesinspiration.”Equallysignificantistheconverseofthis:itistheanagogical aspect of a poem “that appeals to the suprarational faculties in theperson reading or hearing the poem.”19 Since it is always nature that is thesubstance out of which poetry is made, nature itself is shown to be the trueinstrument of transformation for the consciousness that perceives it. Poeticlanguage transforms nature in order that naturemay transform consciousness.These are but two aspects of a process, each element ofwhich does not existwithout the other. Dwelling on beauty—nature’s essence—leads to increasedconsciousnessofitsreality,whichinturnleadstoagreaterperceptionofbeauty.Ifweweretolookforasupremeexampleofthewaythisworks,wewouldfinditintheselinesfromShelley:

Hailtothee,blitheSpirit!Birdthouneverwert,ThatfromHeaven,ornearit,PourestthyfullheartInprofusestrainsofunpremeditatedart.

HigherstillandhigherFromtheearththouspringestLikeacloudoffire;Thebluedeepthouwingest,Andsingingstilldostsoar,andsoaringeversingest.20

For Raine, Shelley’s skylark “is the poet’s spirit in flight, like Plato’srhapsodist, to the ‘Garden of the Muses’, the ‘skies’ of Blake’s ‘supremedelight’, a region of spaciousness, freedom and light above commonconsciousness of which the ‘skies’ have always been the natural symbol.”21Here,theverticaldimensionofconsciousnessfindsitsexactcorrespondenceinthe dimension in which the skylark moves. And the way the lark ascends—“singingstilldostsoar,andsoaringeversingest”—suggeststheverymannerin which poetical language works: nature may act to unfold consciousness,whichinturnactstounfoldthevisionofnatureas“notamaterialworldbutaliving,epiphaniccosmos.”22Thenaturalworldisused,saysRaine,

as the poet’s language, the keyboard, as it were, upon which he strikesresonances of inner experience, by the skilful use of correspondences.Mountain and river, tree and garden, bird and cloud, are words in thelanguageofEdeninwhichAdam‘named’thecreatures....Poetryandtheotherartsare...theworldweinwardlyinhabit,thehumankingdombuiltover a millennia in the full range of the height and depth of humanexperience by means of symbolic correspondences on a vertical axis ofconsciousness.23

The poet’s presentation of the complex interaction possible between natureand consciousness stands in contradistinction to the language of quantifiedconsciousness,wheremeasurablenaturecorrespondsonlytoitself.Thepowerofnature to transform consciousness into something capable of seeing nature forwhatit is,suggestsabeautifulsynthesisofnatureandourselves.Admittedly,avertical dimension to human consciousness does not lend itself to a“democratization”ofnatureof the sort ecophilosophymightwish for. Instead,Raine’s “human kingdom” invokes a sense of the profound distinction thisdimensionconfersonhumanity.However,naturecannotbedenied,at leastnotwithoutconsequences,andtheturningawayfromwhat,untilrecently,hasbeen

consideredour fundamental innernaturehashaddevastatingconsequences forthe natural world. It would be ironic indeed, if, for the sake of thisdemocratization, we were to suppress those very qualitative elements of ournaturethatallowustounveilthedeeperrealityinnature,andpromptustotreatitwithreverence.Tobelievethattheperceptioncorrespondingtoanyparticularconsciousnessis

still “only subjective”would be to remain entrapped in the net that quantifiedconsciousness has woven. The supposition that the poetic consciousness isrooted in physiology is to confound the wholly different orders of reality towhichRaine refers. If thisconfusionhascomeabout, it ispreciselybecauseaconvictionin,andconcentrationon,thematerial,hasledtoastudyofthebrainas if it were coterminous with consciousness and could explain whatconsciousness is. It is entirely to be expected that this would lead to thedisappearanceoftheverymodeofconsciousnessthatchallengesthisoutlook—tothedisappearanceofthe“verticaldimension.”Thishasnotyethappened,24butthepoeticaltraditionthataffirmsavertical

dimension to consciousness exists only precariously while it remains in theshadowofmodernistthought,withthedismalshapeof“psychologism”—whichseeks to reduce everything of a higher order to the human level of thesubconscious and unconscious—looming over it. This is why the attempt todraw, from the poetic experience of beauty and the sacred, an adequateunderstandingofit,requiresustoseekametaphysicalbasisforsuchexperiencethatisrootedinapre-modernworld.Itrequiresustoreturninimaginationtoanearlier time, against the momentum and inertia that the scientific paradigmcontinuallyimpartstotheveryconsciousnessthatattemptssuchamovement.

THESOPHIA

Thisimaginativeventureiswhattheexponentsofatraditionalmetaphysicsarecontinually recommending. However, in confronting the current mode ofconsciousnessthroughreferencetoanalternativemodeofconsciousness—nowlargelylost—theyopenthemselvestochargesofobscurantism,abstruseness,andwoollythinking.25Thoughmodernismisinfactanaberrationagainstthebroadstretch of human civilization, its vision of progress, combined with a certainarrogance,hasmeantacorrespondingmyopiatowardsthepast.26Thisseemstoexplainthenearinvisibilityofanalternative“school”ofthought,whosesoaringtowers seem, to modernist thought, ethereal and without substance, precisely

because they are founded on the great metaphysical systems of the past. Torecognize aperennial tradition of knowledge of unchanging applicability is todefy themodernist conceptionofprogress, and since this tradition isbasedonprinciples that are denied by modernist thought, it is also to defy much ofmodernist thought as such.Unsurprisingly, then, the present day exponents ofthe sophia perennis—perennial, or timeless, wisdom— remain largelyunacknowledgedbymainstreamphilosophyortheology.27Toassert,asMartinLings does, that the Renaissance represents not so much the rebirth ofknowledge but rather “one of the great milestones of decline in WesternEurope”;28todismiss,asGuénondoes,mostmodernphilosophy;29toclaim,asSchuondoes, that“it is impossibletoprovetherealityof theIntellect toeveryunderstanding,”butthatthis“provesnothingatallagainst[its]reality”;30totryto dislodge one of the cornerstones of modernist thought (evolution) as TitusBurckhardtdoes;31toseetheprogenitorsofmodernscienceas“instrumentalinproducing a body of thought representative of about the lowest level ofintelligence to which the humanmind has ever sunk,” or insist that “we canobtain no genuine knowledge of the physical world unless we first attain aknowledgeofspiritualormetaphysicalrealities”32asSherrarddoes,istoinvitedismissalandridicule.Yetthesepronouncementsarenotmadelightly,butinthecontextofacareful,

rigorous,andscholarlydefenceofametaphysics, the ruptureofwhichhas ledfirst to a spiritual crisis, and consequently to an environmental crisis ofunprecedentedproportions.33Theattempttobringbackintothelightwhathasbeenovershadowedbymodernismistorevealjustthisspiritualantecedenttothecrisis.Andtospeakof the“spiritual” is toberemindedofreligion,andso theprincipaldwellingplaceofthismetaphysics.34Centraltothereligionsofallcultures,upuntilthatofthemodernWest,isa

view of human potential that far transcends any account given by theanthropology,sociology,psychology,orbiologyoftoday.Itisnotinappropriatethat religion issooftenplaced inopposition to themodernistworldview,sincetheword“religion”itselfexpressespreciselywhatmodernismexcludes.Aswesawinchapter4,theLatinwordreligiosuggeststhe“ligament”orelementthatallowshumanconsciousnessto“re-connect”toatranscendentreality,wherethedualityofsubjectandobject,knowerandknown,isovercome.Anexpositionofthis core principlemay be found at the heart of each of theworld’s religious

traditions.It istheparticularvirtueofthetraditionalistwriterstobringfullytolightthedifferingexpressionsofthiscommonprinciple.35The fullest and most recent expression of the sophia in Christianity— the

foremost religion of the West—may be found in medieval Scholasticism.36Known for its rational discourse, Scholasticism yet retained, as part of itsmetaphysical doctrine, a perspective on reasoning that betrays the diminishedcharacterofthehumanistandscientificrevolutionsthatwouldfollow.Oneofthegreatconceptionsofmedievalthoughtwasthehierarchy(attributedtoBoethius,480-525CE)ofsensus,imaginatio,ratio,andIntellectus—thelast,theIntellect,referring to the “faculty” by which direct or unmediated knowledge of atranscendentrealityisgained.AsJamesCutsingerexplains,

While reason operates one step at a time, proceeding by stages frompremises to conclusions, the Intellect goes straight to the conclusion. . . .Reason conceives—that is, it holds things together. But the Intellectperceives.37

AndforHustonSmith,

Reason proceeds discursively, through language, and like a bridge, joinstwo banks, knower and known,without removing the river between.TheIntellect knows intuitively and . . . identifies the knower with what heknows,causingonetobecometheother.38

Asa formofperception, the Intellect is analogous to the sightednessof theeye. Its“locus” is thecentreof thebeing,and therefore it is the“heart”or the“soul” which sees; it is the “soul’s central faculty which, in virtue of itscentrality, must be considered as being above and beyond the psychicdomain.”39ThusitisthatforAugustine,“Ourwholebusiness...inthislifeistorestoretohealththeeyeoftheheartwherebyGodmaybeseen,”for“Godislight,notsuchastheseeyessee,butastheheartseeth.”40AndforEckhart(c.1260-c. 1327), “The soul has two eyes—one looking inwards and the otheroutwards. It is the inner eye of the soul that looks into the essence and takesbeingdirectlyfromGod.”41Aquinas(1225-1274)couldspendmuchofhislifeimmersed in the rational systematizing of Christian theology but, uponexperiencingthevisiongrantedbytheIntellect,wouldcounthiswritingsasof

littleimportancecomparedtothisimmediateknowledge.Anunderstandingofthistypeofvisioncanbetracedbackthroughanumber

ofChristianwriters toChrist’sownteachings.42In theGospelofMatthewweare told:“The lightof thebodyis theeye: if therefore thineeyebesingle, thywholebodyshallbefulloflight.”43And,inthefirstcenturiesofChristianity,itis the ready adaptability of Plotinus to Christian intellectualism thatdemonstratesacorrespondencewiththeearlierPlatonicthought.IntheSocraticdialogues,especiallythematureonessuchastheRepublicand

theSymposium, thishighest “faculty”—thenous—is, from thehumanpointofview, theagentofnoesis (Intellective intuition), thecapacity forknowledgeorapprehensionof the transcendent, or inner reality of things.Thus, “there is aneyeofthesoulwhich...ismorepreciousfarthantenthousandbodilyeyes,forbyitaloneistruthseen.”44ForPlatotheagencyofnoesisrevealstheultimateformofBeauty,ortheGood,orGod.Accordingly,thephilosopherkingsofhisimaginedidealState“mustraisetheeyeofthesoultotheuniversallightwhichlightens all things, and behold the absolute good.”45 And in the Symposium,Plato’sgreatworkonloveandbeauty,wearetoldthatabsolutebeautyisknown“withthefacultycapableofseeingit.”46Clearly,Plato’swritingshavehadaprofound influenceonWestern thought;

so much so that it might almost be concluded that we were witnessing acontinuing reformulation of one man’s thought.47 Two things negate thisappraisal. Firstly,we are dealingwith a form of knowledge that by its natureescapes the merely conceptual. Evidence for this knowledge does not comethrough reason, and those who accept its reality, like Plotinus, Augustine, orAquinas, experience it as an undeniable revelation completely unrelated tological or rational proofor discursive thought.Crucial to theunderstandingofthesophia is that rather than being the expression of ideas formulated by anyparticular individual human consciousness, it is rather the expression, throughlanguage (and so through the medium of the rational mind), of what isexperienced when individuated consciousness is transcended in the union ofknower and known. Seen in this way it becomes understandable that thefounders of the great religions, alongwith themystics and sages,were led toadopt,ormakeuseof, similarparticularlyclear, elegant,oraptexpressions.48Secondly, the rise of comparative religion, after theWest was exposed to thediversity of religions in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, has given us a

much greater perspective. Parallel expressions of the sophia, pre-dating Plato,arefoundindiversemetaphysicaltraditions,fromIndiaandChinatothatoftheAmericanIndians.Indeed,“beliefinthetranscendentintellect,afacultycapable,andalone capable, ofdirect contactwith the real, is common to all traditionaldoctrines,ofallagesandcountries.”49Such a faculty cannot be shown or demonstrated to the rational mind,

anymorethanvisioncouldtoonewithouteyesight.Asaperception,itisknownthroughitsownoperation—justassightis.Norcanits“object”—theGood,orDivinity—bedescribedusing reason,because it isnota thing reasoncomes toknow.50ThisiswhySocratesmusttakethemostimportanttruthsasaxiomsorexistential propositions, and why, in addition, they are “proved,” not byreasoningbutwith thepoet’s languageofallegory,simile,andmetaphor.51 Toengage imaginatively in the transference of terms that take place in figurativelanguageistoescapetheusualconstraintsofrationality,andthusfindresonancewith—even promote—the non-rational consciousness. In the Phaedrus, thewingedcharioteer(thenous)throughtheskilfulcontroloftwohorses—theotherelementsofthesoul—isabletoascendtotherealmsoftrueBeauty.52ForPlatonoesisissuperiortodianoia(reasoningordiscursivethinking)andthemetaphorconveys both this superior position and the dominant role the faculty shouldhave.Reasonhas thepotential tocontrol thebodyandmindbut,without itselfbeinginformedbyaknowledgeofwhattruth,goodness,orbeautyis,itisliableto go astray.53 Thus, the progenitors of modern science, for whom reasonbecamepre-eminent,could,whilebelievingreasontobethediscovereroftruth,actuallybemakingreasonsubjecttomorearbitraryexistentialpropositionsthatthe imaginationmight suggest.From this standpoint themethodofempiricismandinductivereasoning,towhichwehavebecomeaccustomed,isequivalenttothesensesalonedictatingtothemindwhatisrealortrue.Whenweincludethefascinationwiththepropositionsofmathematics,wearelookingatareciprocalreinforcement takingplace between the senses and reason that acts to obscurethenoeticfaculty.Reasonpersuadesustotakeaslegitimatesensoryexperienceonlywhatcanbequantified—toconcentrateonthemeasurable—andtoconsidertherestassubjective.Atthesametime,whateverthesensessupplyoftherealityinherentinnatureismodifiedbyreason.Reasoncannotseeaninherentnature,butitcanconcealwhatistherebyactingasabarriertothefacultythatisabletosee.Itcanbeintuitedfromthisthataconsciousnessthatallowsthepropositionsof

the reason to influence what it apprehends through the senses is activelypreventingthenoeticfaculty(which,whenappliedtonature,actstouncoveritsqualitativeaspects)tooperate.Itcanalsobeintuitedthat,forittooperatefully,thereasoningmodemustbesuspended.Since,forPlatotheimmediate,orunmediated,consciousnessislikevisionor

sight(ananalogycommoninmetaphysicalliterature54), intheallegoryofthecave both the various levels of knowing, or perception, and the levels ofknowledge attained by that perception, are rendered through the imagery ofseeing and light.55 In this allegory, our initial position is comparable to thedarkness of a cave; our apprehension of things is limited by the feeble anddistortinglightofourfacultiesofsenseandreason.ItisonlyinandthroughthebrightlightoftheSunthatweseeclearlythenatureoftheworld.Now,noesis is usually portrayed as a perceptive faculty of the individuated

consciousness that somehow extends the range of that consciousness andprovidesitwiththisenhancedknowledge.56Thisperspective—toseenoesisassomehowbelongingtotheself—isinherentwithinthenatureofthemind;57 itnecessarily experiences itself as subject, and objectifies. However, Plato’sallegory subtly captures a very different relationship between nous and self.Uponleavingthecaveoflimitedperception,thingsareseenbythelightofthe“Sun.”Butthe“Sun”symbolizestheultimatereality(orForm)oftheGood.SotheSunisatoncethemeansofsight,andwhatisseen.Itisbothperceptionandwhatisperceived.Symbolically,then,itrepresentsboththeknowingandwhatisknown, andhence, at thehighest level, the identityofnoesis andnous (whichmightnowbecapitalizedas“Nous”).Thus,whatatfirstistakenbythemindtobeitsownlatentpotentialitybecomestheknowingofanentitydistinctfromthemind. And the One, the Good or Divinity, which appeared to be object, isactually a subject whose object is the self. The “Sun” illumining all thingsbecomes the Supreme subjectivity, the ultimate witness of the individuatedconsciousness. From the perspective of individuated consciousness, noesis islessafacultythana“rayoflight”thatconnectswithandilluminesindividuatedconsciousnesswith the light of the Self.58 Plotinus asserts this truthwhen hesays:“Neverdideyesee thesununless ithad firstbecomesunlike,andnevercanthesoulhavevisionoftheFirstBeautyunlessitselfbebeautiful.”59This reversal of the usual ordering that the mind imposes on metaphysical

truthsiscrucialtoanappreciationofthem,becauseitidentifiesthetrueground

ofconsciousnessorsubjectivitytobenot intheindividual,but intheDivinity.ForSmith,

the Intellect is the Absolute as manifest in the human soul. . . . Whatappears from mundane perspective as the Intellect coming to know theAbsolute is in actuality the Intellect as Absolute-inman becomingperceptibletophenomenalawareness.60

Concurrence with this interpretation may be found in diverse metaphysicaltraditions.IntheTaittiriyaUpanishad,wearetoldfirstofthelimitationsofthemind toapproachBrahman, or theAbsolute: “Wordsandmindgo tohim,butreachhimnotandreturn.”61Then,inanotherUpanishad,itisrevealedthatthereasonforthisisbecauseofafailuretoappreciatethetrueordering:“WhenallhasbecomeSpirit,one’sownSelf...howandwhomcouldoneknow?Howcanoneknowhimwhoknowsall?Howcan theKnowerbeknown?”62Brahmancannotbeknown,notbecausetheknowing isimpossible,butbecauseBrahmanistheknower;andthis—intheBhagavadGita—isArjuna’sgreatrevelation:“OSupremeBeing,OSourceofbeings,OLordofbeings,OGodofgods,Oruleroftheuniverse,ThouThyselfaloneknowestThyselfbyThyself.”63The mysterious connection between the innermost “self” and the Divinity

eraseswhat seems paradox. The Jewish philosopher Philowrote: “God isHisownbrightnessandisdiscernedthroughHimselfalone....Theseekersfortruthare thosewhoenvisageGod throughGod, light through light.”64AndAli, thefourthKhalifa,declared:“IknowGodbyGod,andIknowthatwhichisnotGodbythelightofGod.”65ThroughoutChristianhistory,thegreatestthinkershaveneverfailedtoexpressthismystery.ForSaintPaul,“ThethingsofGodknowethnoman,but theSpirit ofGod.”66And forAugustine, “His divinity can in nowisebeseenbyhumansight,butisseenbythatsightwithwhichthosewhoseearenolongermen,butbeyondmen.”67Inthethirteenthcentury,Aquinascouldwrite:“theintellectsees...[God’sessence]throughthedivineessenceitself;sothat in that vision the divine essence is both the object and the medium ofvision.”68Attheendofthatcentury,Dantewouldvoicethesameunderstandinginpoetry:

OlightEternalfixedinSelfalone

knownonlytoYourself,andKnowingSelf,Youloveandglow,knowingandbeingknown!69

Itcanbesurmisedthatthesedescriptionsreflectexperience.70Therefore,thesignificantandcontinuingdeclineintheoccurrenceofreferencestosuchvisionor states of consciousness after the Scientific Revolution, suggests that themanifestation of this Intellective knowledge was in decline.71 This wouldexplain the increasing confusion over its reality, and, as we have seen, theredefiningofconsciousnesswithout thatelement in it.Considering thedeclinetook place at the same time as the rise of science, we might blame modernsciencewith its emphasison theexperienceofquantity, rather thanquality, asthe culprit. Alternatively, we might say that the convictions of men likeDescartes,andthefactthattheywerelistenedto,werebutanoutwardreflectionofthisdecline.72Whateverthecase,oncetherevolutiontookholditoperatedtokeep consciousness directed along a particular course, that of reason-modifiedempiricism, and towards a quantified state, or—as Blake would have it—“sleep.”Tore-invokeBlakeistoberemindedoftheimpactoftheinitialinfluxofthe

VedantictraditionintotheWestinthenineteenthcentury.Blake’s“mentalfight”againstpassivityinthefaceofscientismwasunsuccessfultotheextentthattheunique vision of science continued to grow rather than wane in influence, asthoughitmustrunthecourseithadsetitselfbeforefinallyrunningupagainstitsownlimitations.Bythetimethelimitwasreached,theWesthadbecomeusedtoan extreme rationalism or intellectualism wherein an appeal to “heartknowledge” would look like no more than emotion and sentiment. Preciselybecause the rational mind has become so overextended, it now requires anintellectual account of the sophia equal to the demands of its ownworld. AsSchuonexplains:

The usual religious arguments, through not probing sufficiently to thedepths of things and not having had previously any need to do so, arepsychologically somewhat outworn and fail to satisfy certain needs ofcausality.Ifhumansocietiesdegenerateontheonehandwiththepassageoftime, theyaccumulateon theotherhandexperiences invirtueofoldage,howeverintermingledwitherrors theirexperiencemaybe; thisparadoxissomething that any pastoral teaching bent on efficacy should take into

account,notbydrawingnewdirectives fromthegeneralerror,buton thecontrary by using arguments of a higher order, intellectual rather thansentimental.73

Thus,inmoderntimesitwasGuénonwhowouldonceagainturntotheVedantaforinspiration:74Asanexpressionofpure,unveiled,metaphysicstheVedanta75escapes the usual distinction that must be made between “esoteric” and“exoteric”content.ForGuénon,theVedanta,being“accessibleinitsentiretytoall those who are intellectually ‘qualified,’” fulfils, as far as is possible, therequirements of the Western mentality, which, even so, must still accept thelimitsoflanguage,“sincewordsandsymbols,alltold,servenopurposebeyondactingas aids to conceiving [the inexpressible].”76InManandHisBecomingAccordingtotheVedanta,Guénonwrites:

The “Self” is the transcendent and permanent principle of which themanifested being, the human being, for example, is only a transient andcontingentmodification,amodificationwhich...caninnowayaffecttheprinciple. . . . The “Self”, as such, is never individualized and cannotbecomeso,forsinceitmustalwaysbeconsideredundertheaspectof theeternityandimmutabilitywhicharethenecessaryattributesofpureBeing,itisobviouslynotsusceptibleofanyparticularization,whichwouldcauseittobe“otherthanitself”.77

Further:

The “Self” is not . . . distinct fromAtma, except when one considers itparticularlyand“distinctively”inrelationtoabeing,or,moreaccurately,inrelationtoacertaindefinitestateofthatbeing,suchasthehumanstate,andin so far as one considers it from this special and limited point of viewalone. In this case, moreover, the “Self” does not really become distinctfrom Atma in any way, since . . . it cannot be “other than itself,” andobviouslycannotbeaffectedbythepointofviewfromwhichweregardit,anymore thanbyanyothercontingency.Whatshouldbenoted is that, tothe extent thatwemake thisdistinction,wearedeparting from thedirectconsideration of the “Self” in order to consider its reflection in humanindividuality....Thereflectioninquestiondetermineswhatmaybecalledthe centre of this individuality; but if isolated from its principle, that is,

fromthe“Self,”itcanonlyenjoyapurelyillusoryexistence,foritisfromthatprinciple that itderivesall its reality,and it effectuallypossesses thisrealityonlythroughparticipationinthenatureofthe“Self”.78

Atthelimitoftheverticaldimension,then,weencounterastrangeinversionof reality. The familiar dualism of knower and known has become a mirrorimage of itself: the known becoming the knower, and the knower the known.Thewitnessingcounterparttowhatis,isnotthe“self,”butthe“Self.”Moreover,sincetheSelf—theDivinity—encapsulatesallthatis,theoriginalhumanknowerisnotaseparateentity,buta“fragment”ofthisUnity.Toapplythisnewunderstandingtothequestionofimmanencespokenofby

theRomanticpoetsrequiresthatimmanenceitselfundergothissubtlechange,sothat rather thanGodbeing in,or interpenetrating, theworld, theworld thatweknow is fully and entirely immersed or—as Schuon has it—“mysteriouslyplunged” inGod.Thismeans that thequalities of theDivine do not somuchbelong to the world, rather these qualities are what the world is. The highestPlatonic Forms of the Good and the Beautiful – which in The Symposiumcoincide as the object of love—do not exist in an abstract elsewhere, but arepotentiallyever-present,veiledonlybyafailureofperception,suchfailurebeingthe“illusion”ofMaya,whichrefersnottotheillusorynatureoftheworldbuttotheillusionofperceptiongeneratedbytheexistenceoftheindividuatedself.Wecannowsee that the symbolic languageofpoetryconfronts thedeepest

implications of this truth. When poetry makes nature a symbol for states ofbeing, it is not just offering analogies. It is identifying an actual relationshipbetween ourselves and nature—a relationship of consciousness. Since ourhighest or innermost consciousness or being is divinity, and since nature isdivine,thennatureisnototherthanourownhighestbeing.Becausethereisanexact correspondence between nature’s qualities and the qualities towhichweare potentially heir, the way nature appears is but a reflection of our ownconscious state, of our position on the vertical ladder of our being. Our ownfailings concerning nature stem from the false view we inevitably have of itwhenwefailtoengagewiththehigherelementofourbeing.But,ifthisnon-rationalelement—theIntellect—isabridgethatconnectsour

ownbeingwithdivinity,thenitmustalsobetheelementthatconnectsuswithwhatnatureis.Here,thefirst“steps”onthebridgesuggestthemselvestobetheperception of qualities in nature—divine qualities—like beauty. Movement“acrossthebridge,”betweenthestatesofdualityandnon-duality,wouldthenbe

signalledbyanincreasinglevelofperceptionofbeauty.Thisrecallsandaffirmsthehierarchyofperceptions,andthecorrespondinghierarchyofconsciousstatesrelated to those perceptions, found to be a component of Leopold’s thought.More significantly, however, by virtue of its harbouring the qualities that arepotentiallyours,naturemustpossessameansof“producing”thequalitieswithinourselves that are our own true nature. A directing of consciousness towardsbeautyinnatureandtowardstheuncoveringofbeautycouldbeconsideredthevery same thingas themanifestingof the subtle elementof consciousness.Touncover the depths of beauty in nature would be to unveil the reality of theIntellect.Andtoseekbeautyinnaturewouldbetoseek,andmovetowards,theessenceofnature,andtheconsciousnessoftheDivine.

FOOTNOTES

1Thisbeliefseemedjustifiedbytheunfoldingofscientificdiscovery,somethingwithout precedent. In the nineteenth century, Darwinism became an obvioussupport for this “progressism.” An organism with a history of profounddevelopment implied a corresponding development in consciousness. And theargumentfordevelopmentfromtheprimitiveintellectualcapacityofourdistantancestors (the contemporary “equivalent” of which displayed “simple,”“irrational,” “superstitious,” or “uncivilized” behaviour) suggested an ongoinglinear development. If it could not be doubted that a certain brilliance of“intellect”mustattachtomanypastthinkers,scientificprogressprovidedmoreknowledgeandabiggerpicture intowhichwould fit the“mistaken”beliefsofthesethinkers.Hence,earliermetaphysicalviewscouldbesuperseded.2 Raine adds: “Truth can be confused with fact, with the measurable andquantifiableaspectsofwhatiscurrentlycalled‘therealworld’.TheGoodmaybe seenas actionsor events leading todesirable results;butBeautycannotbequantifiedormeasuredinmaterialterms”(PrefacetoLane,TimelessBeauty,p.8).3 As we saw in part three, the attempt to draw an equivalence between ourperception of beauty and particular mathematical relationships in nature, is afacileone.4AldousHuxley,ThePerennialPhilosophy(London:Chatto&Windus,1969),p.1.5WilliamBlakequotedinKathleenRaine,“TheVerticalDimension,”Temenos

13(1992):pp.198-199.6Inchapter4,wesawthatthepoetsoftheRomanticerawereinfluencedbytheinfluxof theesoteric from theEast.Nevertheless, thepoetic sensibility,whichmaywellbeinspiredbytheintellectualappreciationofaparticularmetaphysic,existsquiteindependentlyofit.7BlakequotedinRaine,“TheVerticalDimension,”p.203.8Raine,“TheVerticalDimension,”p.195.9Raine,“TheVerticalDimension,”p.197.10Raine,“TheVerticalDimension,”p.199.11Raine,“TheVerticalDimension,”p.198.12Raine,“TheVerticalDimension,”p.199.13SamuelTaylorColeridge,“FrostatMidnight”(1798).14 This is ironical because the quantifiable aspects of things do not exist asrealities independentof consciousness. Itwasestablished inpart three that thequantitative aspects of things amount to nothingmore than comparisonsmadebetween the outward forms of those things. Quantum physics shows that themeasurements made through such comparisons are conceptual realitiesbelonging to the consciousness that applies them. As such, they are lessobviously real than the perceptible aspect of things that have not undergonecomparison. Beauty is such an aspect since it is an immediate or directperception.15Raine,“TheVerticalDimension,”pp.201-202.16Thismightbetermedthe“heresy”thatenvironmentalthoughthasinheritedfromscientism—thebeliefthatnature’srealitycouldbesomehowunaffectedbyus.Anecocentricoutlookseemstorequire thatnaturebesomehowfreeof theconstraints imposed by any particular outlookwemight have, and this is notpossible.17Raine,“TheVerticalDimension,”p.202.18 Dante makes mention of these in a 1318 letter to his Veronese patron,CangrandedellaScala,concerningthesubjectoftheDivinaComedia.19 JustinMajzub, “Martin Lings: Collected Poems,” in Sophia Vol. 5, No. 2(1999):p.79.20PercyByssheShelley,“ToASkylark”(1820).

21Raine,“TheVerticalDimension,”pp.204-205.22Raine,“TheVerticalDimension,”p.206.23Raine,“TheVerticalDimension,”pp.204and207,emphasisadded.24Towards the endof the twentieth centuryRaine could still offerT.S.Eliot,Rainer Rilke, W.B. Yeats, Edwin Muir, VernonWatkins, Dylan Thomas, andDavidGascoyneaspoetswhohave“continuallyexploredthehumankingdominall its heights anddepths, seeking to extend the frontiers of that kingdomandrecord its fine subtleties ofwisdomand beauty andmoral perception” (Raine,“TheVerticalDimension,”p.205).25 Raine herself often enough encountered the attitude of the “imperviousrationalistswhodemandsoaggressivelythat...[she]should‘explainwhatyoumean by’ (God, love, beauty, the good, the soul. . .)” (Kathleen Raine,Autobiographies[London:SkoobBooks,1991],p.347).26Thebiasof themodernWest towardsothercultureshasbeen long-standingand stems largely from a belief in its possessing superior tools for providingknowledge.CurrenttechnologicalsuperioritycausesittoconvenientlyoverlooktheearlieradvantagetheEasthad,aswellastheEast’shugecontributiontothetechnical culture of the West. For numerous examples of this, see JosephNeedham,Within theFourSeas (London:GeorgeAllen&Unwin, 1979); andJohn M. Hobson, The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2004). Meanwhile the vast metaphysicalaccomplishments of theEast looked at through the lens of science, have beenseenasmisdirectedorunnecessarystepsalongthepathof“true”understanding.Any attempt to redress this bias, that is now clearly provincial and no longerexcusable,canbeprotracted.Forinstance,itisnowmorethaneightyyearssincethe literature of traditionalism made its first appearance in the West, yet itsreasonableoutlookisstillnotunderstood.AsNasrsays,“Oneoftheremarkableaspects of the intellectual life of this [twentieth] century . . . is precisely theneglectof...[thetraditional]pointofviewincircleswhoseofficialfunctionitis to be concerned with questions of an intellectual order” (S.H. Nasr,Knowledge and the Sacred [Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press, 1981], p.67).27 In 1946AldousHuxley, inThe Perennial Philosophy, gave an account ofwhathetooktobe“themetaphysicthatrecognizesadivineRealitysubstantialtotheworldofthingsandlivesandminds;thepsychologythatfindsinthesoul

somethingsimilarto,orevenidenticalwith,divineReality;theethicthatplacesman’sfinalendintheknowledgeoftheimmanentandtranscendentGroundofallbeing”(Huxley,ThePerennialPhilosophy,p.1).Yet,amanofhisownage—andsteeped in scientifichumanism—Huxley isconsequentlyquite selective inhisapproachtoperennialism.Hefavourstheesotericdoctrinewhiledismissingthe significance ofmany of the ritual practices of religion; he is alsowont toappealtoscientificconceptionsandexplanationsofreality,allofwhichmakehis“perennialism”verymuch a personal andmodernist account, at oddswith theuniversalist and unchanging character of the sophia that the traditionalistsaccept.FormoreonHuxley’sperennialphilosophyseetheaccountbyKenneth(Harry) Oldmeadow in Traditionalism:Religion in the Light of the PerennialPhilosophy(Colombo:SriLankaInstituteofTraditionalStudies,2000),pp.158-160.28MartinLings,TheEleventhHour(Cambridge:QuintaEssentia,1987),p.50.29Guénonwrites: “modern philosophy . . . for the greater part represents nomorethanaseriesofwhollyartificialproblems,whichonlyexistbecausetheyarebadlypropounded,owing theiroriginandsurvival tonothingbutcarefullykeptupverbalconfusions; theyareproblemswhich,consideringhow theyareformulated, are truly insoluble, but on the other hand, no one is in the leastanxious to solve them, and their sole purpose is to go on indefinitely feedingcontroversiesanddiscussionswhichleadnowhere,andwhicharenotmeant tolead anywhere” (Guénon quoted in Whitall Perry, A Treasury of TraditionalWisdom[Cambridge:QuintaEssentia,1971],p.732).30FrithjofSchuon,LogicandTranscendence(London:PerennialBooks,1984),pp.31-2.31 See Titus Burckhardt, “The Theory of Evolution,” in The Betrayal ofTradition,ed.HarryOldmeadow(Bloomington:WorldWisdom,2005),pp.287-300.32Sherrard,HumanImage:WorldImage,p.35andp.6.33Theunderlyingspiritualdimensiontotheenvironmentalcrisiswassuggestedas early as 1968 byNasr in the seminal bookMan andNature: The SpiritualCrisis in Modern Man (Chicago: Kazi), which identifies the importance forhumanity of the metaphysical knowledge contained within the great religioustraditions. His later paper, “The Spiritual and Religious Dimensions of theEnvironmentalCrisis”(whichfirstappearedasTemenosAcademyPaperNo.12

[1999]) serves to reinforce the urgency of seeing and applying thisunderstanding. Sherrard, inHuman Image: World Image, develops the themefromamainlyChristianperspective.AndAngelaMalyon-Bein’sPh.D.thesis,InSearchof theTimelessWisdom:AnInquiry into theEcological Implicationsofthe Loss of Tradition in Western Civilization (University of Tasmania, 2001),offers a comprehensive overview of this theme of “spiritual crisis” from thestandpointofenvironmentalphilosophy.34Nasrstates:“thetermspiritualityasitisusedtodaybegantobeemployedbyFrenchCatholic theologians in themid-nineteenth century and then crept intoEnglish. . . . Today it denotes for many people precisely those elements ofreligion which have been forgotten in the West. . . . Traditionally the termreligionwouldsufficesinceinitsfullsenseitincludesallthatisunderstoodbyspiritualitytoday”(TheSpiritualandReligiousDimensionsoftheEnvironmentalCrisis,pp.6-7).35Toaffirmand,moreimportantly,tobeinspiredbythisbasicprinciple,moreclearly than anything else may be said to be what distinguishes traditionalistwriters. For this reason, it would be only superficially pertinent to claim thatthese writers had adopted a Guénonian stance. Rather Guénon’s role was toexposealongdisusedpathtoaforgottengoal.Thewriterswhoespousesimilarideas to Guénon may be likened to those who have subsequently, andindependently,chosentosetoutonthispath.36TheRenaissance,which represents a turning away fromChristian theologyandawelcomingofClassicalhumanism, is likeacut-offpointafterwhichthefull compassof themetaphysicsbelonging to themedievalworld is no longerclearlyseen.37JamesCutsinger,AdvicetotheSeriousSeeker (NewYork:SUNY,1997),p.28.38HustonSmith,introductiontoTheTranscendentUnityofReligions,pp.xiv-xv.39MartinLings,SymbolandArchetype(Cambridge:QuintaEssentia,1991),p.3.40Augustinequoted inPerry,ATreasuryofTraditionalWisdom, pp. 819 and817.41EckhartquotedinPerry,ATreasuryofTraditionalWisdom,p.816.

42Itcanalsobetracedforward,butaftertheRenaissanceandespeciallyasthescientific revolution took hold, increasingly there was a failure to distinguishbetweenratioandIntellectus.Amongthenotableexceptions to this trendwereBoehme; the Cambridge Platonists John Smith (1618-1652) and Peter Sterry(1613-1672); the contemplative poet Thomas Traherne (1637-1674); and,followingthem,theEnglishDivineWilliamLaw(1686-1761).43MatthewVI:2244Plato,Republic,527e.45Plato,Republic,540b.46Plato,Symposium,212e.47The famousobservation, attributed toA.N.Whitehead, that “the history ofWestern philosophy is, after all, nomore than a series of footnotes to Plato’sphilosophy”capturesthisfeeling.48AsSchuonobserves:“thedeep-rootedagreementofthetraditionaldoctrinesshowsitself...eveninformsanddetails”(FrithjofSchuon,TheFeatheredSun(Bloomington:WorldWisdom,1990),p.51.49MarcoPallis,PeaksandLamas(London:Cassell,1939),p.166.50Accordingly,Socratesdeclinestodoso.SeeRepublic,506e.51Inanagewhenempiricismisthecriterionoftruth,itiscommontofavourtheinductiveanddeductiveelementsofthearguments(afterall,Socratesisfamousforusinglogictouncoverconfusioninbelief),andtreattherestasunsupported.However, for Schuon, “what puts Plato in the clearest possible opposition torationalism . . . is his doctrine of the eye of the soul” (Schuon, Logic andTranscendence, p. 46). The use of rational argument, says Guénon, “neverrepresents more than a mode of external expression and in no way affectsmetaphysical knowledge itself, for the latter must always be kept essentiallydistinctfromitsformulation”(GuénonquotedinOldmeadow,Traditionalism,p.90). And Schuon writes: “that a reasoning might simply be the logical andprovisionaldescriptionofanintellectualevidence,andthatitsfunctionmightbetheactualizationofthisevidence,initselfsupralogical,apparentlynevercrossesthe minds of pure logicians” (Schuon, Logic and Transcendence, p. 37).Nevertheless,“Intheintellectualorder logicalproof isonlyaquiteprovisionalcrystallization of intuition, the modes of which are incalculable” (FrithjofSchuon,SpiritualPerspectivesandHumanFacts[Middlesex:PerennialBooks,

1987],pp.9-10).And,“Metaphysicaltruthsarebynomeansacceptedbecausetheyaremerelylogicallyclear,butbecausetheyareontologicallyclearandtheirlogicalclarityisonlyatraceofthisimprintedonthemind”(SchuonquotedinOldmeadow,Traditionalism,p.89).52Plato,Phaedrus,246a-250c.53This insight ismadeclearer ina remarkably similarmetaphor found in theKatha Upanishad. Here, the higher Intellect, Buddhi—which “considered inrelation to the human individuality . . . is . . . its immediate but transcendentprinciple”(Guénon,ManandHisBecomingAccording to theVedanta,pp.65-66)—isthe“charioteer”thatholdsthereinsofthemind.Thus,“He. . .whosemind is never steady is not the ruler of his life, like a bad driver with wildhorses”(Mascaró,TheUpanishads,p.60).54 Because the prominent instrument of sensible knowledge is sight, “thissymbolismiscarriedevenintothepurelyintellectualrealm,whereknowledgeislikened to ‘inwardvision’”(Guénon,ManandHisBecomingAccording to theVedanta,p.14).55 Plato,Republic, 514a – 521b. The allegory is set forth by Socrates thus:“Imagine the condition of men living in a sort of cavernous chamberunderground,withanentranceopentothelightandalongpassagealldownthecave.Here theyhavebeenfromchildhood,chainedby the legandalsoby theneck, so that they cannot move and can see only what is in front of them,becausethechainswillnotletthemturntheirheads.Atsomedistancehigherupisthelightofafireburningbehindthem;andbetweentheprisonersandthefireisa trackwithaparapetbuiltalongit, likethescreenatapuppet-show,whichhidestheperformerswhiletheyshowtheirpuppetsoverthetop....Nowbehindthisparapet imaginepersonscarryingalongvariousartificialobjects, includingfiguresofmenandanimals inwoodor stoneorothermaterials,whichprojectabovetheparapet.Naturally,someofthesepersonswillbetalking,otherssilent.. . . Prisoners so confined would have seen nothing of themselves or of oneanother, except the shadows thrown by the fire-light on the wall of the Cavefacing them. . . . Such prisoners would recognize as reality nothing but theshadows of those artificial objects. . . . Consider what would happen if theirreleasefromthechainsandthehealingoftheirunwisdomshouldcomeaboutinthisway.Supposeoneofthemsetfreeandforcedsuddenlytostandup,turnhishead,andwalkwitheyesliftedtothelight.. . .Andsupposesomeoneweretodraghimforciblyupthesteepandruggedascentandnotlethimgountilhehad

hauled himout into the sunlight. . . .At first itwould be easiest tomake outshadows,andthentheimagesofmenandthingsreflectedinwater,andlateronthethingsthemselves.Afterthat,itwouldbeeasiertowatchtheheavenlybodiesandtheskyitselfbynight,lookingatthelightofthemoonandstarsratherthantheSunandtheSun’slightintheday-time....Lastofall,hewouldbeabletolookat theSunandcontemplate itsnature,notas it appearswhen reflected inwater or any alienmedium, but as it is in itself in its own domain” (FrancesMacDonaldCornford,trans.,TheRepublicofPlato[London:OxfordUniversityPress,1955],pp.222-225).56Forexample,Cornford,inhisclassictranslation,definesitthus:“noesisis...comparedtotheimmediateactofvisionandsuggests...thedirectintuitionorapprehensionofitsobject”(Cornford,TheRepublicofPlato,p.218,emphasisadded);thePanDictionaryofPhilosophyiscontentwith:“mind”orthe“rationalpartof thesoul”;while theCitadelDictionaryofPhilosophy defines it as“thehighestpartofthemind,viz.reason;thefacultyofintellectual(asdistinctfromsensible)apprehensionandofintuitivethought.”57 The individuated consciousness—the ahamtattva—is, as Guénon says,definedpreciselyby“thenotionthat‘Iam’concernedwithexternalandinternalobjects, which are respectively the objects of perception and contemplation”(Guénon,ManandHisBecomingAccordingtotheVedanta,p.68).58 From the Vedantic perspective: “if we view the ‘Self’ (Atma) . . . as theSpiritualSunwhichshinesat thecentreoftheentirebeing,Buddhi[thehigherIntellect]willbetheraydirectlyemanatingfromthisSunandilluminatinginitsentirety the particular individual state” (Guénon, Man and His BecomingAccordingtotheVedanta,pp.65-66).59PlotinusquotedinPerry,ATreasuryofTraditionalWisdom,p.750.60HustonSmith,introductiontoSchuon,TheTranscendentUnityofReligions,pp.xiv-xv.61Mascaró,TheUpanishads,p.110.62Mascaró,TheUpanishads,p.132.63BhagavadGitaX:15,quotedinPerry,ATreasuryofTraditionalWisdom,p.752,emphasisadded.64PhiloquotedinPerry,ATreasuryofTraditionalWisdom,p.751.65AliquotedinPerry,ATreasuryofTraditionalWisdom,p.751.

661Corinthians,2:11.67AugustinequotedinPerry,ATreasuryofTraditionalWisdom,p.754.68Aquinas,SummaContraGentiles,III,li.69Dante,TheDivineComedy:Paradise, trans.MarkMusa (Harmondsworth:Penguin,1986),CantoXXXIII,124-6.Adifferent translationrenders thesameverse:“OLighteternalwhoonlyinthyselfabidest,onlythyselfdostunderstand,andself-understood, self-understanding, turnest loveonandsmilest at thyself”(DantequotedinPerry,ATreasuryofTraditionalWisdom,p.750).70 To consider that they reflect only “what people have believed” is perhapsmore common. “Therewill be those,”writesSchuon, “whowill questionhowthe existence and effectiveness of this knowledge can be proved: the onlypossible reply is that such proof is given by the expressions of Intellectionthemselves;justasitisimpossibletoprovetoeverysoulthevalidityofagivenreligion...soalsoitisimpossibletoprovetherealityoftheIntellecttoeveryunderstanding, which again proves nothing at all against the said reality”(Schuon,LogicandTranscendence,pp.31-32).71Thesymbolismof“light”or“fire,”whenpresent inpoetry,canbetakentoreflect a poet’smystical vision. InThe Fire and the Stones, NicholasHaggertracesthedeclineintheuseofsuchvisionarysymbolisminEuropeanpoetry.Heconcludes that, inEngland, “The Fire orLight virtually disappeared . . . afterHopkins”—T.S. Eliot, Auden, Vernon Watkins, David Gascoyne, and DylanThomasbeingthelasttorefertoit.InGermany,Holderlin(1770-1843)“knewthe Light,” but Rilke (1875-1926),whowrote imaginatively of others’ vision,“neverexperiencedit.”MallarmeandPaulValeryrepresentthelastglimmersinFrench poetry. See Nicholas Hagger, The Fire and the Stones (Shaftesbury,Dorset:Element,1991),especiallypp.313-331.72“Oneof thegreatunresolvedpsychologicalenigmasof themodernwesternworld,” says Sherrard, “is the question of what or who has persuaded us toacceptasvirtuallyaxiomaticaself-viewandaworldviewthatdemandthatwerejectoutofhandthewisdomandvisionofourmajorphilosophersandpoetsinordertoimprisonourthoughtandourveryselvesinthematerialist,mechanicaland dogmatic torture-chamber devised by purely quantitative and third-ratescientificminds”(Sherrard,HumanImage:WorldImage,p.6).73FrithjofSchuon,IslamandthePerennialPhilosophy(WorldofIslamFestivalPublishingCompany,1976),pp.53-54.

74AnandaCoomaraswamysaidofGuénon:“If [he]wants theWest to turn toEastern metaphysics, it is not because they are Eastern but because this ismetaphysics. If ‘Eastern’metaphysicsdifferedfroma‘Western’metaphysics—astruephilosophydiffersfromwhatisoftensocalledinourmodernuniversities—one or the otherwould not bemetaphysics. It is frommetaphysics that theWesthas turnedaway” (Coomaraswamyquoted inRamaCoomaraswamy,TheEssentialAnandaK.Coomaraswamy [Bloomington:WorldWisdom, 2004], p.90).75The“endoftheVedas,”composedchieflyoftheUpanishadsandtheBrahmaSutras.76Guénon,ManandHisBecomingAccordingtotheVedanta,p.22.77Guénon,ManandHisBecomingAccordingtotheVedanta,p.29.78Guénon,ManandHisBecomingAccordingtotheVedanta,pp.31and32.

PartFive

THENATUREOFNATURE

CHAPTERNINE

ThePrimacyoftheSpirit

AttheheartofeachreligioustraditionistheunderstandingthatthefundamentalrealityistheOnenessofBeing.When,inapplyingthisunderstanding,weusetheterm “essence” to designate the world’s underlying reality, it should berememberedthatthisessenceisnotanontologicalrealitydistinctfromtherestofreality;itisnota“spiritualsubstance”thatinterpenetratesandisfoundwithinanothersubstance.Rather,the“two”areactuallyone,theapparentdualityonlyarising because of the existence of the human state itself, this state beingdefined, precisely, by the relativity of individuated consciousness. The humanbeing isbydefinitiona localizedknower facingan“external”known; it is thehumanmindthatconceptualizestheideaof“essence”and“substance.”Onenessmustremainonlyvirtualwhileconceptualizingpersists;eventhecontemplationofOnenessentailsandperpetuatestheontologicalandepistemologicaldivide.Clearly, the usual operations of individuated consciousness, such as reason

andimagination,donotofthemselvesprovidethemeansofclosingthisgap,butinsteadacttokeepitopen.Thusitisthattraditionalmetaphysicsapproachesthequest for knowledgenot, as in themanner ofmodernphilosophy and science,fromthestartingpointofindividuatedconsciousnessseekingordirectingitselftowards a goal, but rather through an awareness of the primacy of the Spirit,which need only be allowed to impinge upon or be mirrored in thisconsciousness. This possibility is alien to both modern science and modernphilosophy,whosemethod relies on retaining the primacy of the individuatedconsciousness.Themethod of esoterism appears tomake no sense, because itseemsbentonunderminingtheverythingthatissupposedtosupportknowledgein the first place. Yet, if the primacy of the Spirit is accepted, it is onlyreasonabletosupposethatitaloneisresponsibleforthestructureofreality,andthatanygenuineknowledgeresideswhereverthedistortinginfluenceofdualityhasbeenovercome.Aswehaveseen,theoutcomeofseveralcenturiesdevotedto the methods of science seems only to have confirmed that individuatedconsciousness, in thrall to the reasoning faculty,becomes likeadistorting lensappliedtoonepartoftheworldatatime.A traditionalmetaphysicscouldneverbeprimarilyanedificebuiltupon the

foundation of rational thought in the waymodern philosophy is, since it wasneverintendedtobeaspeculativeventure.AstheanalysisofPlatorevealed,itis

astructureofadifferentkind.Anoutershellofnon-speculativedoctrineexistsonly to enclose and safeguard akernel, the revelationofwhich ismethodic innature,apracticalmeanswherebytheSpiritbecomesmanifest.Therelationshipbetween the two elements might be thought akin to the manner in which alighthousesignalsthepresenceofalightwithin.Thebuildingdoesnotbringthelightintobeing,ratherthelightisthereasonforthestructurebeingestablished,and for the form it takes.1 It is the cessation of discursive thought, therelinquishmentofconceptualization,thatallowstheinnerqualitiesoftheSpiritto manifest in consciousness, and the degree to which they do this is whatdefinesthelevelofconsciousness.Since the centrality of the divine in the human is mirrored by the same

centralityintheworld,asimilarprocessmustapplytotherevelationofnature’sessence. From a metaphysical standpoint, the world is sacred because itparticipates in the nature of God. The sacred qualities of nature are an ever-present reality; if they seem “inherent within” nature, and are not readilyperceptible, it isonlybecausetheconsciousnessweareusedtowieldingwhenwe approach nature inevitably masks them. The nature that we know as“wilderness” or “virgin nature”—the wild, untamed and free splendour ofdeserts, forests, lakes, rivers, andmountains,distinct fromourartificialworld,andforuntoldmillennia thematrix inwhichwelived—cannotbeother thanadirect and puremanifestation of divinity, and, as such, always stands ready toprovideanopeningintothatessence.However,abridgebetween“outer”natureand its inner reality cannot take place through the usual operations ofindividuatedconsciousness.ThedualitycanonlybeovercomebytheBeingofnatureinterpenetratingandreformingconsciousness.

PRIMALHUMANITY

Nature as theophany stands at variance with the vision of modernism. It isconsidered today thatwe are part of an all-embracing “ecosphere,” living notjustupon aworld, but immersed in it. The breath of plants surrounds us; weingest,andareformedfromthecascadingwaters,themineralsoftheearth,andthebodiesof theonce living.The sun’swarmth and lightwhich animatesourwakinghours,andthestarsunderwhichwesleepanddream,haveshapedwhatweare.Ournatureisdefined—andinevitablyconfined—bymaterialboundaries.Ifecologyhasshownusapictureofinterconnectedness,itisoneappropriatetoanageandaneyealreadyusedtoseeingthingsinacertainway.Theelementsof

this picture are empirical facts, applied with the brush of reason. While itdisplaysoriginalityandanintricateandcomplexpointillism,thepictureappearscuriously flat and lifeless.Understandably so, since this reassembled imageofnatureistheproductofthesamehandthatfirstbrokenatureapartbywieldingthe knife of analysis. Historically, the ongoing process of dividing nature haspresenteduswithchangingimagesofaninnerworld,imageswhichinturnhavecometolivein,andsoshape,ourimagination(ourinnervision)andhence,ourthoughtandperceptions.The rise of urban civilizations such as those inMesopotamia,Egypt,China

andSouthAmerica,fromthemodernstandpointsignifyprogress,buttheyalsorepresent the beginning of a slow divorce of humanity from nature—both aphysical and a psychic separation. A sedentary lifestyle produces agriculture,towns, the stratification of society, and the development of arts and sciences.Thisartificialworldisshapedbydismantlingandre-fashioningtheenvironment.Todothisitisnolongerpossibleforthemindsimplytorespondtonatureasitpresentsitself;itmustcreateanalternativepictureofnatureasouterformhidinganunderlying structure.And the process bywhich the underlying structure isrevealedisonewherehandandimaginationinteract.Stonewillshapestoneorcutwood.Firewillhardenwoodandsplitstone;moreimportantly,asa“knifethatcutsbelow thevisible structure”2, firewill “create”and transformmetals.Copper, bronze, and iron tools enabled the creation of an increasinglysophisticated artificial world. Moreover, slicing into nature, we fashion forourselvesaninnerimagery,onethatisbasedonourowncreations.Themoreweextendtheartificialworld,thegreaterthesenseoftherealityandimportanceofourparticularviewoftheworld,andso,too,thegreaterthesenseofautonomouspower. Long before the Greek world began to make formal propositionsregarding the underlying structure of nature, humanity was already welladvancedontheroadofpracticalanalysis, theunmediated imagesfromnaturebeingreplacedwithonesofourown.Anaccelerationofhuman inventiveness,the insight into how nature is put together, the harnessing of the energies innature,andthedestructionofnature,allbeganatthistimeandrepresentthebirthofawhollynewformofcivilization.Modernsciencerepresentsthemostrecentoutcomeofanimaginationalhistory;theinnerworldhasbecomethe“real”oneandiswhatdefinesthenaturewenowbehold—athingdetailedintheextreme,but now lacking the elements found in earlier times.3 In seeking an image ofnature that conveys the same sense of interconnectedness, but rendered richly

andindepthandrelativelyfreeof thedistortingimagesbroughtabout throughtheanalysisofnature,itwouldbenecessarytoreachbackintoaworldthatpre-datestheunfoldingofurbancivilization.Forprimalpeoplesthenaturalworldisever-presentbeforethesenses.Since

theactionofcuttingnatureopenisasyetrudimentary,thereisno“beneath-the-surface”image,no“worldwithinaworld”ofthesortwehavegrownusedto,toconflict with what is directly experienced.4 Because sensory experience isunencumberedbyimagesaboutnature—whichforuscontinuallyseektoprojectthemselvesupontheworld—itcanbeconjecturedthatwhateverqualitiesnaturepossessesaremorereadilyexperienced.There are still enough wild or natural places where, removed from the

trappingsofmoderncivilization,wecanbegintotestthissimplervision.Inthesolitude of nature, we encounter the fundamentals of existence. We findourselvesatthecentralpointofaworld,whichencirclesus.Turningaroundonthesummitofhillormountainoronaplain,thecurvinghorizonclearlydefinesthis spatial relationship. Standing still, four cardinal directions suggestthemselves:wefaceone,anotherliesbehindus,thethirdandfourtharetoeitherside.Whatwesee in theworldorientsusandfixes thesedirections.Thesun’splaceofrisingandsettingdefinesthefirsttwo—eastandwest—whilethenorth-south axis crosses this.We are aware, too, of another circularity—the archingdome above—and our central position between earth and sky. If we were toexpress symbolically this relationshipbetweennature andourselves,wemightchoosethecircledividedwithacross,thecross’sintersectionmarkingthecentrewhere we are. Our bodily stance also represents a cross, the central point ofwhichisourcentreofbeing,ourheart.Two peoples in whose art this symbol manifests are the Aborigines of

Tasmania, and the Plains Indians of America. The first have left a record instone.Hugeslabsonthenorth-westcoastoftheirislandhomehavebeencarvedwithsuchglyphs—plainandconcentriccircles,andcrosses.5The“oldpeople”whocarvedthesestonesarelonggone,andmuchoftheircultureisnowadimmemory. Yet to account these stones as only silent testaments to anunfathomablecultureistooverlooktheuniversalityofcertainhumanexperienceand the desire to express that experience. When these same symbols can becorrelatedwitha living tradition, thatof theAmerican Indians,weareatoncepermittedtohearandseemore.Schuon,who,inthelatterhalfofthetwentiethcenturymade a point of studying theAmerican Indian tradition firsthand, and

whodrewupon thepioneeringworkof JosephEpesBrownwhosetdown thenarrativeofBlackElk(theOglalaSioux),couldwrite:

ThewholetraditionoftheIndiansofNorthAmerica...iscontainedinthecross inscribed in the circle. . . . The crossmarks the FourDirections ofspace and all the other quaternaries of the Universe; it also marks thevertical ternary Earth Man-Sky, which puts the horizontal quaternary onthreelevels.6

Thus, the same image of circle with its centre—which adorns the Indians’dress,theirtipis,andtheirsacredobjectsofritual,andwhichisoftenadiscofrawhide painted red or blue—can bemade to express three different realities.Withinthedomainthatthefirstcircledescribes,thegreatmovementsofnaturetakeplace:theheatofdayandthecoolofnight,wind,rain,stormsoffireandsnow,thecycleoftheseasons,andthemoon’swaxingandwaning.Newlifeisceaselessly generated, grows, then dies.Earth, air, fire, andwater are the fourelementsorfundamentalprinciplesofnaturethatcommunicatetooursensesitsbasicmake-up.Allwithinthissphereisinflux.Onlytheclearnightskyrevealsunchangingperfection, and an awarenessof this qualitybringsus closer to anappreciation of the full meaning of the other two “circles,” and to what isfundamentaltoallprimalpeoples.Forthestarssignifyanotherworldaltogether;theydelineateaheavenaboveourhead,theobvious“dwelling-place”orsymbolofaSpiritthatanimateseverything.AsTitusBurckhardtremindsus,“Afactthatmustneverbelostsightofisthat,totheancients...physicalspace,envisagedin its totality, is always the objectivation of ‘spiritual space.’”7Moreover (asnotedearlier),primal“man”israrely,ifever,apantheist,buthasoftenseemedso to ethnologists used to the concept of creation exnihilo whichmakesGoddistinctfromHiscreation.FortheSioux,thethingsofnaturearecreated,butinthe sense of being actual expressions ofWakan-Tanka (theDivinity or “GreatSpirit”); thequalityof sacredness comesabout through the fact that all beingsaremanifestationsofthisSpirit.The second level represents the domain of the human being, who,

subjectively, is always at the centreof theworld andwhoseowncentre is theDivinityorSpirit,“thecenterofallthings,”asBlackElksays.8Atastillhigherlevel,thecircleoftheskyrepresentstheDivineinitscosmic

or transcendent aspect—Wakan-Tanka, “who dwells at the depths of the

heavens.”9Thesun—the“centre”of thesky—alsorepresents theDivinity,butinitsimmanentaspect.ConceivedasSpirit, this“central”lightisthelightthatshinesinthe“heart”of“man”;10thecentreof theGreatSpirit is thecentreofthehumanbeing.ThemysteryoftheDivineassimultaneouslybothtranscendentandimmanent,

bothoutwardandinward,bothcentreandperiphery,andof“man”asbeingbothgreatandsmall,thecentreofaworldbuthavingaworldat“his”centre,isthusbeautifully represented by the use of one symbol which must be viewed indifferentways,andinfactshiftsunderourgazeevenasitiscontemplated.Theuse of this symbol to convey a profound and subtlemetaphysics with simplebeauty demonstrates that symbols of this kind are not expressive of a crudeconception, but rather great subtlety of thought—a cognizance of the highestontological realities, together with an awareness of the insufficiency ofaccurately representing the formless inother thanabstract terms.11AsSchuonwarns,therearegraveproblemsassociatedwithattemptingtoassessthebeliefsofprimalpeopleswithoutanadequateunderstandingofspiritualormetaphysicaltruths:“scientific ‘specialization’alone . . .doesnotamount to the intellectualqualificationenablingonetopenetrateideasandsymbols.”12Anthropologyandethnology as scientific disciplines proceed with the handicap of the rationalviewpoint:

According to a very prevalent error . . . all traditional symbols wereoriginallyunderstoodinastrictlyliteralsense,andsymbolismproperlysocalledonlydevelopedasaresultofan“intellectualawakening”whichtookplace later. This is an opinion that completely reverses the normalrelationship of things. . . . In reality, what later appears as a superaddedmeaningwasalreadyimplicitlypresent,andthe“intellectualization”ofthesymbolsistheresult,notofanintellectualprogress,butonthecontraryofaloss...ofprimordialintelligence.13

With theAmerican Indian example before us, the danger of reading simpleimages as indicative of simple conceptions or a primitive consciousness isclear.14 A scientific mentality that could conceive the great symbols of theTasmanianAboriginestobeakintothefirstfalteringartworksofchildren,isthesameone that couldoverlook thepowerful significanceof theirbelief that the

Spiritdwellsinthe“leftbreast,”anddepartsatdeath.15The indications of a complete metaphysical tradition in human society

existingoutsidetheusualmatrixofformalizedreligionmaysuggestacontinuityof tradition stretching into the remote past, and require us to reassess theprinciple of progress so dear to modernists. In Ancient Beliefs and ModernSuperstitions, Lings argues the case for a re-interpretation of early humanity,basedonaviewinclusiveofmetaphysicaltradition.16Scepticismregardingthescientificappraisalofhumanhistoryasaretreatintoamoreandmoreprimitivepastismadeeasierwhenitisconsideredthatthesignificantcontactswithprimalpeople—in,forexample,theAmericas,thePacificislandsandAustralia—cameaboutonlyafter theRenaissanceandScientificRevolution,whenmetaphysicalunderstanding was in decline and there was increasing emphasis on materialculture:17

If science . . . knowsmuchabout [humanity’s] prehistoricpast . . . [this]knowledgewouldhave taughtourancestors littleornothing that theydidnotalreadyknow,exceptasregardschronology,norwouldithavecausedanygeneralchangeinattitude.Forinlookingbacktothepast,theydidnotlookbacktoacomplexcivilizationbuttosmallvillagesettlementswithaminimumofsocialorganization;andbeyondthesetheylookedbacktomenwholivedwithouthouses,inentirelynaturalsurroundings,withoutbooks,withoutagriculture,andinthebeginningevenwithoutclothes.Itwouldbetruethentosaythat theancientconceptionofearlyman,basedonsacredscriptures and on age-old tradtional lore handed downbyword ofmouthfrom the remote past,was scarcely different, as regards the bare facts ofmaterial existence, from the modern scientific conception, which differsfromthetraditionalonechieflybecauseitweighsupthesamesetoffactsdifferently.18

Today,thebeliefinmaterialevolution,fromthesimpletothecomplex,almostdemands a corresponding historical development in expressions of humanintelligenceorthought.Yet,forLings, thisinclinationcaneasilybechallengedbythefactsoflanguagealone:

[The] conception of man’s primordial speech as having been the mostperfectly expressive or onomatopaeic of all languages is . . . beyond the

reachofanyphilologicalverification.Nonethelessphilologycangiveusaclearideaofthegenerallinguistictendenciesofmankind,andindoingsoitteachesusnothingwhichinanysenseweighsagainstthetraditionalreport.On the contrary, every language known to us is a debased form of somemore ancient language, and the further we go back in time the morepowerfully impressive languagebecomes. It alsobecomesmore complex,sothat theoldestknownlanguages, thosewhicharefarolder thanhistoryitself,arethemostsubtleandelaborateintheirstructure....Thepassageoftime always tends to diminish the individual words both in form andsonority,whilegrammarandsyntaxbecomemoreandmoresimplified.19

If language corresponds to perception, in the sense that it exists tocommunicate inner and outer experience, then subtlety in language certainlyreflectssubtletyofperception.Weneedonlybring tomind the terminologyofancient Sanskrit or even classicalArabic to be reminded that therewere once“more things in heaven and earth” than modern philosophy now dreams of.Whenperceptionextendsbeyondouterform,andlanguage,likeart,isaskedtodescribethatperception,languagemustextendbeyondits“outer”orliteralform;itmustbesymbolic.Then,words,likeimages,arenolongeralwaysmeanttobetakenatfacevalue,butrepresentsubtlertruths.Theassumptionofourowntime,whichis,moreorless,thateverythingmodernsciencecanmeasureisreal,andeverythingelse ismerely theexpressionofa subjectiveconsciousness,obligesus to disregard this interpretation of language as an indication of subtleperception, because science peremptorily denies the existence of what thesymbolappliesto.Similarly,wewillalsooverlooktheuseofeverydaylanguagetoexpresssymbolically—inthesamemannerasimages—adeepertruth.20

NATUREASSYMBOL

Thesubtlestperceptionderivesfromunitiveknowledge,theheartknowledgetowhichBlackElkrefers:

WhenthelightcomesfromAbove,itenlightensmyHeartandIcansee,forthe Eye ofmyHeart (Chante Ishta) sees everything. . . . The heart is asanctuaryat theCenterofwhich there is a little space,wherein theGreatSpirit (Wakantanka) dwells, and this is the Eye. This is the Eye ofWakantankabywhichHeseesallthings,andthroughwhichweseeHim.21

Unmediated awareness reveals that the phenomenal nature known toindividuated consciousness conceals an inner essence.22The innermost of theknown is the same as the innermost knower—that is, Divinity. In this state,knower andknown are indistinguishable.Nature is sacrednow, not because itreflectsDivinitybutbecauseitsdivinityisrealized.Whentheessenceofthingsisexperienced,thereisnoneedfortheirsymbolic

representationthroughwordorimage.23Whenthetrue“art”ofnatureisknown,there is little need for another art that refers back to this one. For AnandaCoomaraswamy,

Itisevidentthatsymbols...canservenopurposeforthosewhohavenotyet, in the Platonic sense, ‘forgotten’. . . . The need of symbols, and ofsymbolicrites,arisesonlywhenmanisexpelledfromtheGardenofEden;asmeans, bywhich amancanbe remindedat later stagesofhisdescentfromtheintellectualandcontemplativetothephysicalandpracticallevelsofreference.24

Bythisreasoning,thepaucityofexternalimagesinaculturemayindicatenotunderdeveloped consciousness, but the existence of a less individuatedawareness.25Althoughthisisnoteasytoprove,whatismorecertainisthattheinitialprolongation of Intellectual perception—what is carried away from thisexperienceandactstopermeateapeople’sculture—isthefeltexperienceofthesacredness of nature. The phenomena of phenomenal awareness then stand assymbolsfortheessentialnatureofnature.Andthesymbolisminquestionisofthenatureofadirectcorrespondence; thereisnothingarbitraryaboutit,as thefollowingpassagefromSchuonmakesclear:

Itwouldbequiteerroneoustobelievethatthesymbolistmentalityconsistsinselectingfromtheexteriorworldimagesonwhichtosuperimposemoreor less farfetched meanings; this would be a pastime incompatible withwisdom.On thecontrary, the symbolistvisionof thecosmos isapriori aspontaneous perspective that bases itself on the essential nature—or themetaphysicaltransparency—ofthephenomena,ratherthancuttingtheseofffromtheirprototypes.26

Thesymbolistoutlookisinaccordwiththestructureofreality:

Thescienceofsymbols—notsimplyaknowledgeoftraditionalsymbols—proceeds from the qualitative significance of substances, forms, spatialdirections, numbers, natural phenomena, positions, relationships,movements, colors, and other properties or states of things; we are notdealing here with subjective appreciations, for the cosmic qualities areorderedinrelationtoBeingandaccordingtoahierarchywhichismorerealthan the individual; theyare therefore independentofour tastes,or ratherthey determine them to the extent that we are ourselves conformable toBeing; we assent to the qualities to the extent that we ourselves are“qualitative.”27

Whileallofnature isof theSpirit, theSpiritvastly transcends its immanentaspect. The symbolist vision is to see evidence of this transcendence as it is“reflected”disproportionatelyinthedifferingaspectsofnature:

Thesymbolismofathingisitspowertorecallitshigherreality,inthesamewaythatareflectionorshadowcangiveusafleetingglimpseoftheobjectthatcastsit;andthebestsymbols...arethosethingsthataremostperfectoftheirkind,fortheyaretheclearestreflections,thesharpestshadows,ofthehigherrealitywhichistheirarchetype.28

Thusitisthat,whentheBhagavadGitawantstolistthosephenomenathatmostclearly indicate the presence of the Divinity in nature, it includes “only thegreatest”:

Ofluminaries[Iam]theradiantsun.Iamthelordofthewindsandstorms,andofthelightsinthenightIamthemoon....OfradiantspiritsIamfire;andamonghighmountainsthemountainofthegods....OflakesIamthevastocean....OftreesIamthetreeoflife....OfbeastsIamthekingofthebeasts....AmongthingsofpurificationIamthewind....OffishesintheseaIamMakarathewonderful,andamongallriverstheholyGanges...andoftheseasonstheseasonofflowers....Iamthebeautyofallthingsbeautiful.29

From a traditional perspective, nature could never be a “democracy”whereeverything is considered equivalent in value because of a basic materialsimilarity.30Instead,becauseoftheprimacyoftheSpirit,non-materialqualities

mustbe re-introducedasontological aspectsof theworld.Andsince therearesomethingsthatmoreperfectlyexpress,forinstance,thequalitiesofbeautyormajesty—whichare the reflectionsofdivine beauty andmajesty—naturemustbestructuredhierarchically.Since the essence or esoteric core of religion is the knowledge of the inner

realityofboththeworldandofourselves,“pre-civilized”peopleswhohavethesame understanding as that of the American Indians could rightly be said topossess all that is essential as regards metaphysical knowledge.31 For primalhumanityimmersedinnatureitisthenaturalworld,notscripture,whichrevealsthe truth of things, and in a manner that is direct. Indeed, constantly in thepresenceoftheartistryoftheDivine,artwhichseekstoremindofmetaphysicaltruthsislargelyunnecessary,the“shadowsorreflectionsofspiritualrealities”32beingtooapparent.For theAmerican Indians, as formost primal people, the sun is one of the

clearestmanifestationsof the spiritualqualities inherent innature. Itwouldbeimpossibletoover-emphasizethesignificanceofthesourceofalllightandlife:

Thesunis theHeartof theMacrocosm, thehumanheart is thesunof themicrocosmthatweare.ThevisiblesunisonlythetraceoftheDivinesun,but this trace, being real, is efficacious and allows the operation of“analogicalmagic”.33

InhisaccountofthesacredriteoftheSunDance,recordedbyBrown,BlackElkspecifiesthat

Aroundrawhidecircle...bemadetorepresentthesun,andthisshouldbepaintedred;butatthecenterthereshouldbearoundcircleofblue,forthisinnermostcenter representsWakan-TankaasourGrandfather.The lightofthissunenlightenstheentireuniverse;andastheflamesofthesuncometous in the morning, so comes the grace of Wakan-Tanka, by which allcreaturesareenlightened.Itisbecauseofthisthatthefour-leggedsandthewingedsalwaysrejoiceatthecomingofthelight.Wecanallseeintheday,andthisseeingissacredforitrepresentsthesightofthatrealworldwhichwemayhavethroughtheeyeoftheheart.34

Themoonisalesserlight,illuminatedbythesun,andenlightenstheworldinthehoursofdarkness.“Whenthemoonisfullitisasiftheeternallightofthe

GreatSpiritwereuponthewholeworld,”saysBlackElk.35Themoon’snatureistowaxandwaneas“everythingcreatedwaxesandwanes,livesanddies.”36Its“living”natureallowsit torepresentall livingthings.Significantly, though,“the growing and the dying of the moon reminds us of our ignorance whichcomesandgoes.”37Anightwithoutmoonlight is thesoulwithoutknowledge,whilethefullmoon’sreflectedlightaptlysuggeststhefulllightoftheSpiritintheheart,andthereforethemoonisthesymboloftheenlightenedhumansoul.ForLings:

Thesunandthemoon...symbolizerespectivelytheSpiritandtheHeart:just as the moon looks towards the sun and transmits something of itsreflected radiance to thedarkness of thenight, so theHeart transmits thelightoftheSpirittothenightofthesoul.38

Iflightissoobviouslythesymbolofconnectivitybetweenwhatisaboveandwhat isbelow, itmaybeaskedwhat in the terrestrialworldacts toreciprocatesuch a movement and define the vertical dimension in terms of the soul’saspiration.BetweenEarthandSky,whatgreatsymbolsarethere?The birds that rise from the earth, ascending skyward free of our physical

limitations, are the most powerful of symbols. Most sacred to the AmericanIndian is theeagle,whosesoaringflight,soclearlyvisible in theblueexpanseaboveourhead,seemstobringittotherealmofthesun:

OYou,SpottedEagleof theheavens!weknowthatYouhavesharpeyeswithwhich you see even the smallest object thatmoves onGrandmotherEarth. O You, who are in the depths of the heavens, and who knoweverything.39

AspartoftheSunDanceriteBlackElkadvises:

Youshouldprepareanecklaceofotterskin....Atthecenterofthecircleyou should tie a plume taken from the breast of the eagle, for this is theplacewhichisnearesttotheheartandcenterofthesacredbird.ThisplumewillbeforWakan-Tanka,whodwellsatthedepthsoftheheavens,andwhoisthecenterofallthings.40

Thevisiblerelationshipbetweeneagleandsun,thattakesplaceoverhead,isasymbol from the hand of nature herself. However, the same symbolism isreflectedinIndianartasthe“featheredsun”

foundonbuffalohidesusedascloaksandoccasionallyasabackgroundforceremonies.TheSuniscomposedofconcentriccirclesformedofstylizedeaglefeathers;theresultingimpressionisparticularlyevocativeinthatthesymbolsimultaneouslysuggestscenter,radiation,powerandmajesty.Thissymbiosis between the sun and the eagle . . . [is] found again in thecelebrated headdress of feathers formerly worn by chiefs and greatwarriors.41

Thesymbolismofthesacredriteof theSunDance,oneof the“sevenwaysofprayingtoWakan-Tanka,”42isthat“manisspirituallytransformedintoaneaglesoaring towards Heaven and becoming identified with the rays of the DivineSun.”43Thesecondgreatsymbol innatureofhierarchyinboth thespheresofbeing

andknowingisthetree.Althoughfirmlyfixedupon“GrandmotherEarth,”ittoorisesheavenwardswithoutstretchedlimbsandlivesandmovesinthe“sky.”IntheriteoftheSunDance,

oneof thestandingpeopleshasbeenchosen tobeatourcenter;he is thewagachun(therustlingtree,orcottonwood);hewillbeourcenterandalsothepeople,forthetreerepresentsthewayofthepeople.Doesitnotstretchfromtheearthheretoheaventhere?44

Schuoncomments:

Thecentralelementoftheriteisthetree,imageofthecosmicaxiswhichjoinsearthtoHeaven;thetreeisthepresence—necessarilyvertical—oftheCelestialHeightovertheterrestrialplane;itiswhatallowsthecontact,bothsacrificialandcontemplative,withtheSolarPower.45

The third great symbol is “man,” who in his vertical stance, motivity, andupwardgaze,standsfor thatwhichre-linksearthandheaven,andmostclearlyembodies a receptivity to the “light” from above.46 From the traditionalist

perspective, “man himself as he was created . . . is the greatest of earthlysymbols.”47Theinitialqualificationissignificant,for“man”ashehasbecome—manof themodernworld—no longer assents toor evenunderstands suchastatus. By contrast, for Black Elk, representative of a premodernist tradition,“This which is over your head is likeWakan-Tanka, for when you stand youreach fromEarth toHeaven; thus, anything above your head is like theGreatSpirit.Youarethetreeoflife.”48Asimplerecognitionofahumanbeing’sinnatecapacities,andnotanarrogant

assumptionof superiority or licence to do aswewish, iswhat lies behind theunderstanding of humanity’s unique position.49 Black Elk, like otherrepresentatives of tradition, finds in this position cause for profound humility.Indeed, this “favoured” position implies a responsibility with which no othercreatureissimilarlyburdened.Asmediatorbetweenearthandheaven,humanityisresponsibleforhowtheearthfares.Itisthissenseofdutytoearthandheavenwhich infusesboth theeveryday livesand the sacred ritesofprimalman.Therites re-establish and re-confirm man’s connection to heaven, but more thananythingestablish theunderstandingofhowtheworldassacredpresence is tobe treated, and the means by which this is to be done. Such rites have littlemeaningtopost-Renaissancerationalmanbecausethelinkbetweenheavenandearth,whichprimalmantakestobeanessentialcharacteristicofmanquaman,isnotthere.Thebreakingofthelink—effectedforthemostpartbyitsdenial—andtherejectionofsacredritesis,forprimalpeoples,thelossofabilitytoeffectharmony in the universe.50 When the environmental philosopher EdwardGoldsmith says, “theoverridinggoalof thebehaviourpatternofanecologicalsociety must be to preserve the critical order of the natural world or of thecosmos,”51 he is fully aware that for traditional peoples this critical order orsacred balance is not thought to be preserved just by taking only what isnecessaryorbeingmindfuloftheneedsofothercreatures.Morethananythingitis the rites, ofwhichBlackElk speaks, that aredirected towards restoring thebalance and harmony between people and between humanity and nature. Inrecallingthatthesearereligiousritesthathavetheirparallelinallreligions,wecan seewhyGoldsmith refers to “the role that religion can andmust play insavingwhatremainsofthenaturalworld.”52Wecansee,also,thereasonNasr,aftermorethanthirtyyearsspeakingindefenceoftheenvironment,cansay,“Inthedeepestmysticalsense,natureishungryforourprayers.”53

Thedisparitybetweentheoutlookofpre-urbancivilizationandourownmaybring tomind theoccasionswhen thebeautyofprimalpeople—whether itbetheir physical grace, manner of expression, or moral behaviour—was firstdocumented.FortheChristianexplorersoftheRenaissanceandEnlightenment,convincedthoughtheywereofthemeritsoftheirowncivilization,thediscoveryofthe“childrenofnature”couldstillevokeasympatheticresponse.Theirownreligionspokeofsimplicity,purityandinnocence,andthis iswhat theyfound.Columbus,“goingashoreintheAntilles,wasstruckbytheprofoundwell-beingoftheislandofArawak.(‘Thereisnotintheworld,abetternation.Theylovetheir neighbours as themselves, and their discourse is ever sweet andgentle.’)”54 Bougainville took from his experience of the natives of Tahiti avisiontoconfirmRousseau’sdoctrineofthe“noblesavage.”CookcountedtheAboriginal people of Australia among the most fortunate in the world.55 InTasmania, d’Entrecasteaux, Labillardière, and Péron—who, significantly,represented peaceful research expeditions—received only “friendliness,kindness, and generosity [from] the inhabitants.”56 However, the vision of aPacific “paradise” and a “noble savage” soon disappeared once the same“savages”madetodefendtheirparadiseagainstthosebentonpossession.57The parallel found between those living in close harmony with nature and

nobility of spirit can be explained most easily, not through Rousseau’ssentimentalviewofchildlikeinnocence,butbyanintegrityofbeingwhereinthefull range of human faculties is either expressed or affirmed. Through animmediacyofvision,oritsprolongationinthelanguage,images,andritualofaculture,natureitselfbecomesthe“bookofrevelation.”Theneedforasecondaryexpressionofreligionasweknowit,iscircumvented.ForSchuon,

[Virginnature]...playstheroleofTemple,aswellasofDivineBook.Inthisthereisanelementofesoterism—obviouslyso,sinceitisaquestionofa survival from the primordial religion—whichmonotheistic and Semiticexoterismhadtoexcludebecauseitwasobligedtoopposethenaturalismofreligions that had become pagan, but which, on the plane of the religioperennisorsimplyoftruthassuch,retainsallitsrights...fornothingcanprevent Nature in general and its noble contents in particular . . . frommanifesting God and being the vehicle of graces, which they cancommunicateincertainconditionsbothobjectiveandsubjective.58

Integrity of being necessarily implies humility towards the earth, which isabsent when the awareness of humanity’s position in the scheme of thingsdisappears.TheconqueringspiritoftheEnlightenment,arrogantthroughhavinglost the inner, or esoteric, awareness, was blind to themore subtle aspects ofthoseculturesitencountered.Theexotericoutlookofacivilizationexplainsitsmissionaryzealanditsinabilitytounderstandtheheedlessnessoftheconqueredpeopletotheformofreligiontheyaresubjectedto,whichappearsmeaninglesspreciselybecauseitlacksanyconnectionwiththeobviousmanifestationoftheSpirit in thenaturalworld.The root of the tragedyof theEuropean encounterwith primal peoples was not merely the assumption that a worthwhilecivilization should contain just those elements familiar to a post-Renaissanceage, but the incapacity to register the inner dimension of their culture. TheRenaissancelivedintheimaginationasaneraduringwhichunquestionedbeliefwas augmented by knowledge drawn from theAncientworld, so producing agreater clarity of vision. Yet, as we have seen, the knowledge gathered washighly selective, and instead impressed itself upon European history and theEuropeanmindlikeascreen,blockingaclearviewofthepastthatwouldmakecoherentbothourownlong-standingtheocentriccivilizationandthereligionofnature towhich theprimalpeoplesadhered.Thedivertingofattention towardsthe rational faculty and away from the intuitive meant that the world, whichthroughIntellectivevision isperceivedasa translucent realitybothhidingandrevealingitstheophaniccharacter,cametolookopaqueunderthescrutinyofagazemoremyopic.Thenewconsciousnesswassuchastopreventawarenessofthe unity lying “behind”phenomena, and, instead, it became convincedof thesolidityofthesensoryworld.ThefollowingclaimbyLeoSchaya—whichwouldhavemadeperfectsenseandbeenassentedtobythepre-Renaissancemind—ismorelikelynowtobecategorizedasconjecture:

Thewholeofexistence...istheexpressionoftheonereality,thatistosaythe totalityof its aspects,manifestableandmanifested, in themidstof itsvery infinity. Things are no more than symbolic “veils” of their divineessence or, in a more immediate sense, of its ontological aspects; theseaspectsaretheeternalarchetypesofallthatiscreated.59

Nature interpreted as symbol may draw the accusation that it is not beingappreciated for itself. However, such a view fails to appreciate the deepermeaning of symbolism first mooted in chapter 1. From a traditionalist

perspective,symbolismdoesnotsubstitutetherealityofnaturewithsomethingmore abstract, but instead claims for natural phenomena a participation in agreaterreality.Thesymbolistmentalitydeniesthevalidityoftheordinaryhumanperspective on nature, since it is through this perspective that the nature weknow “suffers” from the veil which our consciousness draws over it. Theineluctable—and fatal—connection between what nature “is” and what ourconsciousness is, is nowhere more clearly seen, and merely to entertain thedoctrine of symbolism is at once to confront the question of our ownepistemologicalshortcomings.InSchuon’swords:

Themanofrationalistformation,whosemindisanchoredinthematerialassuch, starts from experience and sees things in their existential isolation.Water is for him—when he considers it aside from poetry—a substancecomposedofoxygenandhydrogen,towhichanallegoricalsignificancecanbeattributedifonewishes,butwithouttherebeinganecessaryontologicalconnectionbetweenthematerialthingandtheideaassociatedwithit.Thesymbolistmind,onthecontrary, is intuitiveinasuperiorsense,reasoningandexperiencehaving for it the functionofanoccasionalcauseonlyandnot of a foundation. The symbolist mind sees appearances in theirconnectionwith essences: in itsmanner of vision, water is primarily thesensible appearance of a principle-reality, a kami (Japanese) or amanitu(Algonquin) or a wakan (Sioux); this means that it sees things, not“superficially”only,but aboveall “indepth,”or that it perceives them intheir“participative”or“unitive”dimensionaswellasintheir“separative”dimension.60

Thequestion,“whatisthenatureofnature?”cannotbemeaningfullyasked—and certainly not answered—without being aware that our own nature, or ourown consciousness, is drawn into the very framework of the question. Theparticular visionwe nowhave of nature is one slowly formed during the fivehundred years or so inwhich our allegiance to Intellective perception becameincreasingly diminished. A withdrawal of consciousness into the shell ofrationality meant that we believed the world and our knowledge of it weredistinct,onefromtheother.Oursciencefosteredabeliefthatonlysomeofthequalities we experienced should remain in the world, while the rest must bebroughtwithinthedomainofourownconsciousness.Thisviewhasworkedtoundermine the qualitative experience of nature, so that attributes like beauty

seem now like projections onto nature of exclusively human values, feelings,andsentiments.Bothabeliefinourownseparatenessandaconvictionthatourminds are the origin ofmany of the qualities, mark the “absolutizing” of thehumanbeing. Inevitably, theattempt toquantifyallcharacteristicshas led toareductionofthevalueofeventhequalitieswehavebeenleftwith,andtheyhavecometoappearmoreandmoreabstract.This process of reduction has been throughmeasurement of theworld—the

imaginativeassociationofaspectsof sensoryexperiencewithmeasuring tools,ultimately with mathematical symbols. Mathematics is the basic language ofscience, and through this language the Western consciousness has been“quantified”—ithassuccumbedtoafaithinthelegitimacyofquantifiedreality.In contrast, from a traditional perspective (“traditional” precisely because it

represents theperennialoutlookofhumanity)allofnature,beingof theSpirit,cannotbutexpressthequalitiesorattributesofDivinity.Althoughtheworldisimmersed inGod61 and there is nothing that exists independently, diversity isnot compromised by this ultimate unity since, as Lings says, existence isprojectedforthfromtheessenceofAbsolute,InfinitePerfectioninthemannerofa ray of light which grows increasingly dim as it recedes from its source.62DistancefromtheUnity,iftreatedhierarchically,becomesameasureofhowtheAbsoluteisdividedagainandagain.Suchdivisionsarenumerousbut,forLings,themaindivisionsarethosebetweentheAbsoluteandtherelativeAbsoluteorCreator (Nirguna andSagunaBrahma in Sanskrit); then the division of Spiritandsoul;andbelowthis, thedivisionintosoulandbody.Inthecosmogonyofthe Vedanta, after Purusha manifests Prakrti, the elements of manifestation(tattvas) areMahatattva (Buddhi or Intellect), Ahamtattva (the sense of “I”),Manas (mind), then the five koshas (or “envelopes”), the last of which iscorporeality. This view almost exactly reverses modern cosmogony, whichimaginessimplemattergiving rise toan increasingcomplexity,andeventuallyhuman consciousness emerging. Yet, if manifestation is a prolongation of thenatureofDivinity—“the trueprinciple towhicheverythingmustultimatelybereferred”63—itistobeexpectedthatallofexistencewillbeamanifestationinvaryingdegreesoftheattributesoftheDivinity.Whenontologicalhierarchyisviewed from the topdownas itwere, it canbe seen that thequalities (which,when the human state is “absolutized,” are taken to be qualities of humanconsciousness)arisenotfromthehumanstate,butareprojected“into”thisandall the states of existence from above; the ahamtattva is responsible for the

delusionoforiginality.Sincethequalitiesarenon-material,itisimpossiblethattheycouldbediscoveredwithinthematerialrealmbyutilizingthatveryrealmasameansofmeasurement.Considering the nature of their origin, the qualities must be considered

innumerable. Nevertheless, Islam’s “ninety nine” Names of God give someindicationofthesequalities.Here,Beauty,Majesty,Grandeur,Nobility,Wisdom,Truth,Glory,Sublimity,Bounty,Compassion,Peace,Love,andLife,aredivinearchetypes whose ultimate nature vastly transcends the limited reality wenormally ascribe to them. Since there is a continuity to existence—aconsequenceofthefundamentalontologicalidentity—natureinevitablyreflects(or,more accurately, is amanifestationof ) all these divine attributes to somedegree.Moreover,nature reflects thevery structureof this reality.The infiniteblue of the sky, or oceanic limitlessnesswhich is ever one but is shaped intomultipleforms,arereflectionsofthissort;whilethespiderandherwebaremorethanmetaphorforthisstructure—theirveryexistenceismadepossiblebecausetheyareasymbolinthetruesense,thatis,areflectionofontology.AccordingtoLings,

Theconcentriccircles represent thehierarchyof thedifferentworlds, thatis,thedifferentplanesofexistence;themoreoutwardthecircle,thelowerits hierarchic degree, each circumference being in itself a disconnectedoutward (therefore ‘downward’) projection of the centre.The radii of thewebontheotherhandareimagesoftheradianceoftheDivineMercy,andtheyportray therelationshipofconnectionbetweenthecentreandall thatexists.64

Throughmodernism’slongconcentrationonthepsychicandmaterial,weareinclined to split the holism that Lings wants us to see into two separatecategories: thesymbolandwhat issymbolized.Thefirstweconsiderreal,andthe other only an idea or metaphor. Furthermore, we want to reverse theordering, so that what is actually the more real of the “two”— Divinity—becomes imaginary, while the less real is thought more substantial. Insistingupon this interpretation, though, actually demonstrates the extent to whichhumanconsciousnesshasbeensubvertedbyscientificthought.Thequantifyingprocess,bywhichallnon-quantifiablethingsbecomepsychicthings,meansthatthequalitiesofnaturearenotrecognizedasqualitiesofnature,butaselementsofconsciousness.But,accordingtothetraditionalists,thehumanstateisitselfa

reflection of the qualities of the Spirit, and, therefore, its nature andmode ofseeing is dependent upon what “light” from the Unity is reflected in it.65Furthermore,duetotheinseparabilityatthedeepestlevelofknowerandknown,there is an exact correspondence between the qualities reflected in the humanstate and those within nature. Therefore, the sense we have of the beauty ofnatureisnotsomethingwecreate;itdoesnotrelyonmanufacturedconceptions.Nor does it come simply from theworld and impinge on consciousness. It israther theotherwayaround:our subjectiveawarenessofbeauty is the relativeexistencewithinconsciousnessof thequalityBeauty itself,whichallowsus to“see” it “outwardly” because it resonates with the quality Beauty in ourenvironment; “we assent to the qualities to the extent that we ourselves are‘qualitative’.”66 When the rays from the divine Beauty strike and illumineindividuated consciousness, theyqualify consciousness; that is, they allow thequalityofbeautytobeperceived.Thisqualificationisthelesseningofthedividebetweenontologyandepistemology,sincethenatureoftheSpirit,whichisbothknowerandknown,beginstoreplaceegoicorindividuatedconsciousness.The identity—at thedeepest level—ofknower andknown, and the fact that

most of the divine qualities belong to both nature and human consciousness,means that there is a two-way relationship between nature and ourselves.Immediateawareness(inthesenseofbeingunmediatedbyrationalordiscursivethought)ofthenaturalworldallowstheactualnatureofthatworld—itsbeauty,for instance—to impinge upon consciousness. The qualities of nature—whicharethequalitiesofGod—maythenacttoqualifyconsciousness,thusreversingthemovement taking place under the impact of the quantification of science.Significantly, the process will be self-reinforcing: the presence of beauty inconsciousness allows an increasing perception of beauty, while the world’sbeautylendstoconsciousnessafurthercapacitytoexperienceit.Understoodinthisway,natureisrevealed“asamultitudeofmoreorlesspureimagesofGodorofhisqualities,asahierarchyofmoreorlesspuretruthsleadingtowardstheonlytruth.”67Since“wilderness”or“virgin”natureisaperfectreflectionoftheSpirit’s qualities, this type of nature provides the means whereby aremembrance, or recollection of the soul’s true nature can most readily takeplace.Byoneinterpretationofafamoushadithqudsi,theworldexiststoallowitsowndeepestnaturetobeunderstood:“IwasaHiddenTreasureandIlovedtobeknown, so I created theworld.”And in theQur’an,weare told: “We shallshowthemoursignsonthehorizonsandwithinthemselvesuntiltheyknowthat

thisistheTruth.”68Tobereceptivetonatureassymbolistobegintowithdrawaveilfromconsciousness.

FOOTNOTES

1Toequatelight—sooftenusedtorepresenttheaimofmethod—withmethoditself, is not misplaced because, from the esoteric point of view, the methodcorresponds closely to that which it is applied to—the Spirit. From thetraditionalistpointofview,thereisveryrealidentitybetweencertainpracticesinwhich the human being engages, and the Spirit itself. This is the reason, inesoterism,fortheinvocationofthenameofGod,since,insacredscriptssuchasArabic and Sanskrit, there is identity between the name and what is beingnamed. In Sufism, al-ism huwa’l-musamma—“the Name is the Named”—indicates that theDivine ispresent in itsnameandtherefore invocationhasanincalculable effect on the consciousness of the invoker. See the chapter “TheQuintessential Esoterism of Islam” in Frithjof Schuon, Sufism: Veil andQuintessence(Bloomington:WorldWisdom,1981).2ThephraseisBronowski’s.SeeTheAscentofMan,p.125.3Nasrwrites:“Nothingismoredangerousinthecurrentecologicaldebatethanthatscientisticviewofmanandnaturewhichcutsmanfromhisspiritualrootsand takes a desacralized nature for granted while expanding its physicalboundaries by billions of light years. This view destroys the reality of thespiritual world while speaking of awe before the grandeur of the cosmos. Itdestroys man’s centrality in the cosmic order and his access to the spiritualworld”(S.H.Nasr,ManandNature[London:UnwinHyman,1990],p.7).4Thefollowingaccountadequatelysumsupthemodernsecularviewofnature:“ForcontemporaryWesternconsciousness landscape isbarren, empty,unalive.Farfrombeinganimatedbyancientspiritsofplace,landscapeisseenasadeadobjectivebackgroundtoourbusy,ego-centredandself-propellinghumanlives....Westernintellectualtraditionhasahostoftermsandconceptstoexplainawayany attempt to animate the land in life or art: projection, personification,anthropomorphism, pathetic fallacy. Any life ‘out there’ was put there by anoveractiveor‘creative’mind.Indeed,thecontemporarypostmodernviewisnotevensure that there isareal landscapeatall,orwhetherourexperienceof thelandisentirelycreatedbyourownsubjectivity.Allweknow,accordingtothisbleak intellectualist position, are our own internal images, which we project

vainlyupontheworld”(DavidJ.Tacey,EdgeoftheSacred:TransformationinAustralia[Melbourne:HarperCollins,1995],pp.148-9).5 Themost elaborate non-figurative designs are found at Sundown Point. AnexampleofthecirclewithinternalcrossoccursatGreensCreek.SeeJosephineFlood,RockArtoftheDreamtime(Sydney:HarperCollins,1997),chapter8.6FrithjofSchuon,TheFeatheredSun(Bloomington:WorldWisdom,1990),p.14.7 Titus Burckhardt, The Universality of Sacred Art (Colombo: Sri LankaInstituteofTraditionalStudies,2001),p.23.8JosephEpesBrown,TheSacredPipe(Norman:UniversityofOklahomaPress,1989),p.71.9Brown,TheSacredPipe,p.71.10 Brown explains: “Wakan-Tanka as Grandfather is the Great Spiritindependent ofmanifestation, unqualified, unlimited, identical to theChristianGodhead,ortotheHinduBrahma-Nirguna.Wakan-TankaasFatheristheGreatSpiritconsideredinrelationtoHismanifestation,eitherasCreator,Preserver,orDestroyer, identical to the Christian God, or to the Hindu Brahma-Saguna”(Brown,TheSacredPipe,p.5).11 InTheFeatheredSun, Schuon cites a fatalmisrepresentation by amodernauthor that begins with an eighteenth century account of a meeting withDelawareIndians:“Inthecourseoftheconversation(William)Pennaskedoneof the Lenape (Delaware) interpreters to explain to him the notion which theNativeshadofGod.TheIndian...soughtinvainforwords.Finallyhedrewaseriesofconcentriccirclesontheground,and,indicatingtheircentre,saidthatthis was the place where the Great Man was symbolically situated” (WernerMuller, Die Relgionen der Waldindianer Nordamerikas [Berlin: D. Reimer,1956]).Schuonexplainsthatthe“argumentbasedonthisincident[was]thatforthe Delawares God was a drawing, thus something ‘concrete’ and not an‘abstraction’!”(Schuon,TheFeatheredSun,p.5).12Schuon,TheFeatheredSun,p.4.Schuonadds:“WhiletheIndiansofNorthAmericaareoneoftheraceswhichhavebeenmoststudiedbyethnographers,itcannotbesaidthateverythingaboutthemisfullyknown,forthesimplereasonthatethnographydoesnotembraceallpossibleformsofknowledge—anymorethandootherordinarysciences—andthereforecannotpossiblyberegardedasageneralkey.Thereisinfactaspherewhichbydefinitionisbeyondthereachof

ordinaryscience(‘outward’or‘profane’science,thatistosay),butwhichisthevery basis of every civilization: this is spirituality—the knowledge of DivineReality and of themeans of realizing It, in some degree or other, in oneself.Clearly no one can understand any one form of spirituality without knowingspiritualityinitself;tobeabletoknowthewisdomofapeoplewemustfirstofall possess the keys to such wisdom, and these indispensable keys are to befound,notinanysubsidiarybranchoflearning,butinintellectualityatitspurestandmostuniversallevel”(Schuon,TheFeatheredSun,pp.45-6).13 Schuon, The Feathered Sun, p. 3. In regard to Jung’s psychologicalinterpretation,Burckhardtwrites:“What isabsolutelyfalse is theviewthat theoriginofthesymbolistobefoundintheso-called‘collectiveunconscious’...in a chaotic substratum of the human soul. The content of a symbol is notirrational,but supra-rational, that is to say,purely spiritual” (TitusBurckhardt,MirroroftheIntellect[Cambridge:QuintaEssentia,1987],p.117).14Adeterminationtoapplyscientificreductionismtotheuniversalimageryinthe art of primal peoples, inevitably leads to the positing of a behavioural orbiological cause. Thus, first Desmond Morris finds a similarity between theimagesproducedbyprimatesand thoseofyoungchildren (seeD.Morris,TheBiologyofArt:AStudyofthePicture-makingBehaviouroftheGreatApesandits Relationship to Human Art [New York: Knopf, and London: Methuen,1962]).Next,thepicturesofpreschoolchildren,analyzedbyRhodaKellogginthe 1950s, are equated with phosphenes—the images that the eye and brainproduce on their own (see R.M. Kellog, M. Knoll and J. Kugler, “Form-similarity between phosphenes of adults and preschool children’s scribblings,”NatureVol.208 [1965]:pp.1,129-30).Finally,acomparison ismadebetweenphosphenes and aboriginal rock art (see R.G. Bednarik, “On the Nature ofPsychograms,” The Artefact Vol. 8, 3-4 [1984]: pp. 27-32), leading to thehypothesisthat“someoftheearliestartis...thoughttobeanexternalisationofthese images” (P.G.Bahn, and J.Vertut, Images of the IceAge,Facts onFile[NewYork:Oxford,1988],p.20);andthe“possibilitythatthecapacitytoreducethree-dimensional sensory information to a two-dimensional image was notpresent to the people who produced the most archaic rock art in Australia”(Bednarik quoted in Flood, Rock Art of the Dreamtime, p. 243). Suchspeculations not only overlook anymetaphysical explanation, but even ignorethe incisive testimonies of early ethnographers and Aborigines themselves.GeorgeAugustusRobinson,forexample,statesthattheTasmanianAborigines’

body adornment of circular cicatrices is “in imitation of the sun and moon,”which“havingthepowerofthoseluminariestheyimagineitwillhavethesameinfluence”(N.J.B.Plomley,ed.,FriendlyMission:TheTasmanianJournalsandPapersofGeorgeAugustusRobinson,1829-1834[Hobart:TasmanianHistoricalResearchAssociation,1966],p.582).15 Lyndall Ryan, The Aboriginal Tasmanians (Crows Nest, NSW: Allen &Unwin, 1996), p. 11. Indeed, as Oldmeadow points out, “It is in the primalcultures(sooftendismissedorpatronizedas‘primitive’and‘preliterate’),suchas those of theAustralianAborigines, theAfricanBushmen, or theAmericanIndians, that we find themost highly developed sense of the transparency ofnatural phenomena and the most profound understanding of the ‘eternallanguage’”(Oldmeadow,“TheFirmamentShewethHisHandiwork,”p.43).16Martin Lings, Ancient Beliefs andModern Superstitions (London: Unwin,1980).17ThomasHobbes’seventeenthcenturyassessmentiswellknown:“Noarts;noletters;nosociety;andwhichisworstofall,continualfearanddangerofviolentdeath; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes,Leviathan,i.13).Rousseau,intheeighteenthcentury,favouredthestatebetween“primitive” and “civilized” (“la société naissante”) to be ideal, because heassumedthatbeforethatmanwas“asolitary,moving,stupidbutunmoralbeast”(Rousseauquoted inTheAboriginalTasmanians, p. 49). Even as short a timeagoas1971,DavidDaviescouldwriteoftheTasmanianAborigines:“Ifwantinglittleforthebody,theyrequiredevenlessforthesoul.Withnogods,noformofworship,theirvaguefearsweredueonlytothewild,dreadvoicesoftheconstantstorms,thedarkness,andtheeyesoftheTasmanianWolf...peeringatthemoutof the blackness beyond the fire.With these fears lifemust have been all themoreterriblebecausetheydidnothavetheslightestunderstandingofthelawsoftheuniverse”(DavidDavies,TheLastoftheTasmanians[Sydney:ShakespeareHeadPress,1973],p.10).18Lings,AncientBeliefsandModernSuperstitions,pp.6-7.19Lings,AncientBeliefsandModernSuperstitions,pp.11-12.Relevantinthiscontext isDavies’ telling comment concerning the language of theTasmanianAborigines: “A language, albeitwithnoordinarygrammatical niceties, provedtheirkind:though,aswithallprimitivepeople,itwascomplicatedanddifficulttounderstand”(Davies,TheLastoftheTasmanians,p.10).

20ThismayremindusofKant’sdismissaloftheontologicalargumentforGod.Imaginary dollars are possible, he says, but this does not mean they exist inreality. However, this overlooks the subtlety of the argument. The image ofdollarsarisesbecauseoftheexistenceoftherealmoney,whichhintsatthetruththattheperceptionofDivinitycomesbeforethesymbolicimagesofDivinity.21BlackElkquotedinPerry,ATreasuryofTraditionalWisdom,pp.819-20.22 The inner quality of things brought by such perception is only “inner”becausethesubtletyofperceptionisnotthenorm.TheheartknowledgegiventoBlackElkisexceptionaltoday.23TheBhagavadGitaexpressesthisideathus:“Asistheuseofawellofwaterwherewatereverywhereoverflows,suchistheuseofalltheVedastotheseeroftheSupreme”(BhagavadGita,II:46).24 Ananda Coomaraswamy, “Symbols,” in What is Civilisation? (Ipswich:Golgonooza Press, 1989), pp. 126-127. “We assuredly have ‘forgotten,’”continuesCoomaraswamy,“farmorethanthosewhofirsthadneedofsymbols,andfarmore than theyneed to infer the immortalby itsmortalanalogies;andnothingcouldbegreaterproofofthisthanourownclaimstobesuperiortoallritualoperations,andtobeabletoapproachthetruthdirectly.Itwasassignpostsof the Way . . . that the motifs of traditional art, which have become our‘ornaments’,wereoriginallyemployed.In theseabstract forms, thefartheronetraces thembackward . . . themoreone recognises in themapolarbalanceofperceptible shape and imperceptible information” (Coomaraswamy, What isCivilisation?p.127).25JosephineFloodobservesthatdespitethewelldocumented“complexityandrichnessofthereligiousandceremoniallifeofthe‘nomads’ofcentralAustralia”theywerelabelled“primitive,”“becauseofthesimplicityoftheirfewtoolsandlackofmetal,potteryoragriculture.”Yet,“suchconceptsarederivedfromtheunduevalueplacedonmaterialculture...inourWesternpossession-dominatedway of thinking. . . . This is a totally alien concept to traditional Aboriginalsocieties, whose preoccupations are much more with the intangible world ofreligionandlaw”(Flood,RockArtoftheDreamtime,p.2).26Schuon,TheFeatheredSun,p.6.27Schuon,“SeeingGodEverywhere,”inSeeingGodEverywhere,pp.4-5.28MartinLings,The SacredArt of Shakespeare (Rochester: Inner Traditions,

1998),p.135.29BhagavadGitaX:21-36.30And,fromthesameperspective,toforceittobesoinordertosupportonceagain,aparticularconceptionofthingsandaparticularexigency,wouldamounttoanirrationaldenialofwhatnatureis.31 Brown remarks that for the Lakota, “each form in theworld around thembears such a host of precise values andmeanings that taken all together theyconstitute what one would call their ‘doctrine’” (J.E. Brown quoted inOldmeadow,“TheFirmamentShewethHisHandiwork,”p.43).32Lings,TheSacredArtofShakespeare,p.135.33Schuon,TheFeatheredSunpp.94and97.34Brown,TheSacredPipe,pp.71-2.35Brown,TheSacredPipe,p.67.36Brown,TheSacredPipe,p.71.37Brown,TheSacredPipe,p.67.38Lings,SymbolandArchetype,p.3.39Brown,TheSacredPipe, p. 77. The spotted eagle’s significance lies in itsbeingthehighestflier.40Brown,TheSacredPipe,p.71.41Schuon,TheFeatheredSun,p.100.42Brown,TheSacredPipe,p.68.43Schuon,TheFeatheredSun,p.100.44Brown,The Sacred Pipe, pp. 69-70. Black Elk adds: “I think it would begoodtoexplaintoyouherewhyweconsiderthecottonwoodtreetobesoverysacred.Imightmentionfirst,thatlongagoitwasthecottonwoodwhotaughtushowtomakeourtipis,fortheleafofthetreeisanexactpatternofthetipi....Another reasonwhywechoose the cottonwood tree tobe at the centerof ourlodgeis that theGreatSpirithasshowntous that, ifyoucutanupper limbofthis tree crosswise, there youwill see in the grain a perfect five pointed star,which,tous,representsthepresenceoftheGreatSpirit.Alsoperhapsyouhavenoticedthatevenintheverylightestbreezeyoucanhearthevoiceofthecottonwoodtree;thisweunderstandisitsprayertotheGreatSpirit,fornotonlymen,

but all beingspray toHimcontinually indifferingways” (Brown,TheSacredPipe,pp.74-5).45Schuon,TheFeatheredSun,p.97.46 In the words of theChandogyaUpanishad, “There is a Light that shinesbeyond all things on earth, beyond us all, beyond the heavens, beyond thehighest, the very highest heavens. This is the Light that shines in our heart”(Mascaró,TheUpanishads,p.113).47Lings,SymbolandArchetype,p.2.48Brown,TheSacredPipe,p.123.49 This is why for the traditionalists a sense of humanity’s difference shouldremain. To efface this uniqueness in the interests of promoting an equalityamongstspeciesistorisktheeffacementofthispositionofmediator.50ThisiswhytheAmericanIndianculture,likemanyothertraditionalcultures,expectsunavoidablecalamityifthebalanceisnotredressed.51EdwardGoldsmith,TheWay:AnEcologicalWorld-View (London:RandomCentury,1992),p.xvii.52EdwardGoldsmith,TheEcologistVol.30,No.1(2000):p.3.53 S. H. Nasr, The Spiritual and Religious Dimensions of the EnvironmentalCrisis,p.13.54PeterMatthiessen, IndianCountry (London: Fontana, 1986), p. 15. “It hasbeen suggested,” says Peter Matthiessen, “that he named them Indios notbecause he imagined them to be inhabitants of India . . . but because herecognized that the friendly, generous Taino people lived in blessed harmonywiththeirsurroundings—unagenteinDios,apeopleinGod.”Matthiessenadds:“The Indians strove to live honourably and responsibly aswell as generously,andperhaps itwas theverygoodnessof a ‘heathen’people, socivilized inallmeaningfulways, thatwas so disturbing to religiousmenwho had towrestlewith the bestiality in their own natures” (Matthiessen, IndianCountry, pp. 15and16).55Cookwrote:“theNativesofNew-Holland...arefarmorehappierthanweEuropeans; being wholy unacquainted not only with the superfluous but thenecessaryConveniencessomuchsoughtafterinEurope,theyarehappyinnotknowingtheuseofthem.TheyliveinaTranquilitywhichisnotdisturb’dbytheInequality of Condition” (Philip Edwards, ed.,The Journals of Captain Cook

[Harmondsworth:Penguin,1999],p.174).56Ryan,TheAboriginalTasmanians,p.61.57 See Ryan, The Aboriginal Tasmanians, chapter 2. The subsequent conflictwhichobliteratesinitialgoodwilldoesnothingtodisproveinnatetendencies,butdemonstratesonlywhatshouldbeobvious:inthestruggleforsurvival,themoresubtleelementsofaculturearethefirsttodisappear.58Schuon,TheFeatheredSun,pp.92-3.59 Leo Schaya, “Creation, the Image ofGod,” in SeeingGod Everywhere, p.241.60Schuon,TheFeatheredSun,pp.6and9.61TheBhagavadGita expresses it thus: “All beings are inMe and I am notMyselfinthem....MyBeingupholdsbeingsand,withoutbeingItselfinthem,itisthroughItthattheyexist”(BhagavadGita,IX:4-5,trans.RenéGuénon,inManandHisBecomingAccording to theVedanta [NewDelhi:OrientalBooksReprintCorporation,1981],p.81).62Lings,SymbolandArchetype,p.13.63Guénon,ManandHisBecomingAccordingtotheVedanta,p.58.64 Lings,Symbol and Archetype, pp. 6-7. The spider, Lings adds, “would beincapableofweavingitswebfromitsownsubstanceifcreationwerenotwovenout of the substance of the Creator” (Lings, The Eleventh Hour, p. 37). It ispossible to take from theMundakaUpanishad the samemeaning: “Even as aspidersendsforthanddrawsinitsthread...evensothewholecreationarisesfromtheEternal”(Mascaró,TheUpanishads,p.75).65 From the traditionalist perspective, being made “in the image of God”(Genesis1:27)meansthepotentialtoexpressallthedivinequalities.66Schuon,“SeeingGodEverywhere,”pp.4-5,emphasisadded.67Schaya,“Creation,theImageofGod,”p.241.68Qur’an,LXI:53.

CHAPTERTEN

TheImprintoftheSacred

THEGENESISOFSACREDART

Toseewithasymbolist’seyeistoseetheworldinthelightoftradition,andtobeaware,likeBlackElk,ofthelanguageinwhichnature“speaks.”Itisalsotouncover thehidden language thatprimalpeoplesuse in their art, for“symbolsare the language of sacred art.”1When vision is no longer direct, sacred artoffersareminderofwhat theessenceofnature isbyreferringdirectlyback tothesymbolalready“hidden” innature.Assuch, it isanartwhoseexpressionsmust themselvesbe treatedassymbolic; in thisapproachalonedowecometoseehowprimalpeoplesexperiencednature.Now, if therewerenocontinuitybetween thevisionofprimordialhumanity

and that of more recent civilizations, such an understanding would remainunlikely. However, the fundamental perception that defines for primal peopletheir“religionofnature,” is thesameas that referred to in theesoterismofallreligious traditions; hence, when we look to the sacred art of those latertraditionswemay expect to encounter a symbolism that captures some of thesamebasicperceptionsregardingnature.Itisworthremindingourselves,oncemore,thatonlyinthebriefspanoften

ortwelvethousandyearshavewecreatedanalternativetoanancientandalmosttimeless pattern of human life.As the last ice age drew to a close, in certainareas of thewarmingworld the life of the hunter-gatherer, the nomad and thepastoralist, gave way to settled communities. A record of this dramatic andrelativelysuddenchangeispreservedintheTorah.Cain,whorepresentsthenewsedentaryexistence,destroyshisnomadicbrotherAbel.SinceGodfavours thelatteritmaybeassumedthatalifeimmersedinnatureisclosertoanideal,whiletheway of agriculture is associatedwith degeneration.2 In the crucible of theAgrarianRevolutionwefindnotjustthedissolvingoftheoldwayoflife,buttheformation of formalized religion, as though the secondwas a prolongation ofwhat had been, and necessary to shore against the danger inherent inmovingaway from the vision provided by nature.3 This agrees with an acceptedprincipleofthesophiaperennisthat,attheoutsetofareligion(whichisalsothestart of a civilization as such), the esoteric dimension is uppermost and fully

expressed.4Consequently,whileethicalprecepts—whichlatercometodominatean exoteric side of religion—are important when people set themselves in astruggletoassert themselvesagainstnature, it is thegeneraloutlookprevailingintheearliestdaysofareligionthatisinitiallysuggestiveof“primordiality.”Certainly,boththereligiousfoundersandthesageswhofollowedthemoften

expressedadeepsympathywiththebeautyandsimplicityofthenaturalworld,and with a life close to virgin nature. As the prototypal “king of the yogis,”Shivaissaidtoliveinthe“abodeofthesnows”andtheriversthatflowfromtheHimalaya are considered to be his shining locks. Accordingly, it becamecommon when Hinduism was still an oral tradition, for guru and disciple tofrequent wild, often mountainous places, eschewing the trappings of urbancivilization. To this day, “among the Hindus . . . it is still an ideal—and aprivilege—foramantoendhisdaysamidthesolitudesofvirginnature.”5Christ’s whole life was a lesson in the virtues of the simple life, of

relinquishing the attractions of the “marketplace,” and beingmindful that theflowersofthefieldarearrayedinabeautythatsurpassestheraimentofaking.TheearlyChristianasceticsof theHoly landandEgypt frequented the remotedeserts in their search forwisdom.And in theMiddleAges, the hermitswhochosetoliveintheseclusionofnaturalsurroundings—andwereoftenveneratedbecause of this—“felt a certain benevolent pity for their brethren’s serviledependenceupon‘civilization’.”6Muhammad spent his early life among the desert Bedouin, whose nomadic

waysandpurerlanguagewereesteemedbytowndwellers.7Later,thecavesofthedesertbecamehisretreat,anditwasinoneofthesethat,attheageofforty,he began to recite the Qur’an. Afterwards, Islam’s communal worship wasperformedintheopenair,thefirst“mosques”beingnothingmoreelaboratethanwalledenclosures.TheQur’anitselfisacontinuousreminderofthebeautyandmajesty of created nature, so much so that Burckhardt has called Islam “therenewaloftheprimordialreligionofhumanity.”8Theoriginsofthesymbolicartofthevariousreligionsaretobefoundinthe

originsofartitself.Oneoftheveryfirstarts—aprolongationofthecircularityfoundinnature—isshelter.“Nomadicsanctuaries,madeliketentsorcabinsoflivebranches,aregenerallyround;theirmodelisthedomeofthesky.Similarlynomadic encampments are arranged in circular form.”9 The American Indiantipis ofbuffalohide, and theTasmanianAborigines’barkhutsconform to this

pattern.Aswehave seen, circularity reflects centrality.Since theworldof theSpirit and its immediatemanifestation—nature—is pre-eminent for primordialpeople,thehumanfigureintheirartisusuallyinsignificantwhencomparedwiththeportrayalofother species.10Hence, the square structure, derived from thecross of the four directions, but ultimately defined by the human figure itself,makesitsappearancelater.Thecross(representinghumanity)togetherwiththesquare of the earth (the cardinal axes) is found, for example, in the Hindutemples,11 and the square combined with the circle (representing the sky orheaven)formtheprincipleelementsoflatersacredarchitecture—thebasilicasofChristianityandmosquesofIslam.Incontrastwithotherreligions,Islam’savoidanceofrepresentationalimagery

reflectsadeepappreciationforsymbolisminthetraditionalsense,andhenceamoreacuteunderstandingoftheriskofconfusingwhatisonlysymbolwithwhatis important in its own right. Islamic art tends to be restricted to the abstract,whichmoreadequatelycorrespondstothefundamentalnatureofdivinity,whichis not outer form but inner essence. Islamic architecture recapitulates in arelativelypureformtheexistentialrealitiestowhichprimalhumanity,livinginnature, was subjected. Since Islam regards itself as the “seal” of all previousreligions, it affirms the right to “take to itself the heritage of more ancienttraditions,whilestrippingthatlegacyofitsmythologicalclothing,andreclothingitwith“abstract”expressionsmorenearlyinconformitywithapuredoctrineofUnity.”12Accordingly, although theoriginal “mosque”was earth and sky, thesquare of the earth and the dome of the sky had already been transposed inByzantinearchitectureintoarectangularbasesurmountedbyacupola,andthiswas eventually assimilated by Islam, which often added an octagonal drumbetweenthetwo:

Thebuildingasawholeexpressesequilibrium,thereflectionoftheDivineUnity in the cosmic order. Nevertheless since Unity is always Itself,whatever thedegreeatwhich it isenvisaged, the rectangularshapeof thebuildingcanalsobetransposedindivinis,thepolygonalpartofthebuildingwill thencorrespond to the ‘facets’of theDivineQualities (assifat)whilethedomerecallsundifferentiatedUnity.13

Themosqueitselfisessentiallyempty.ItcontainsnoimagebecauseDivinityisnotlocalizedinspaceandtimebuttranscendsboth:14

The absence of images in mosques has two purposes. One is negative,namely, thatofeliminatinga“presence”whichmightset itselfupagainstthe Presence—albeit invisible—of God, and which might in additionbecome a source of error because of the imperfection of all symbols; theother and positive purpose is that of affirming the transcendence ofGod,sincetheDivineEssencecannotbecomparedwithanythingwhatsoever.15

Ifthedivinepresencewithintheworldfindsitsnaturalsymbolintheinfiniteblue spaces of the sky above, and this realm is mirrored in the dome and ininterioremptiness,thenthenaturalsymbolforthedivinewithinhumanityistheenclosed spaces of the earth. For primal people some of themost sacred ritestook place in caves. The ancient cave art of the Aborigines, like that of thehunter-gatherersofEurope, celebratesboth the life that sustains them, and thehandwhich represents theuniquepower theyhavewithin theworld, andmayevenbefoundwherenooutsidelightpenetrates,butwherelightmustbebroughtin.16The significance of the cave in early Islam has been acknowledged. But a

similar connection between the cave as both retreat and protection from theworld,andasanopeningontoaninnerworld,maybefoundinalltraditions.Thestylisticrepresentationofthisnaturalforminarchitectureistheniche,which,inHinduismandChristianityholdsthesacredimage,andinIslamhasbecometheempty prayer niche or mihrab. The very interiority of the mosque—as anyenclosed sacred space—suggests inwardness, while the mihrab suggests afurtherinwardnesswithinthisenclosure—agatewaytoanotherworld.Allthesesymbolic elements are captured and given glorious expression in theVerse ofLight(SurahAl-Nur),wherethenichehasbecome,unmistakably,theHeart:

GodistheLightoftheheavensandtheearth.TheParableofHisLightisasiftherewereaNicheandwithinitaLamp:theLampenclosedinGlass:theglassasitwereabrilliantstar:litfromablessedTree,anOlive,neitherofthe East nor of the West, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though firescarcetouchedit:LightuponLight!GoddothguidewhomHewilltoHisLight.17

Whileitwouldbelegitimatetosaythatsinceeverythingpartakesofdivinity,thereforeeverythingcouldbetakenasasymbolfortheDivine,itisneverthelesstrue,aswesawearlier,that

“symbol”means “sign” or “token,”which implies an operative power tocallsomethingtomind,namelyitsArchetype....Whetherthisorthatcanrightlybecalled symbolicdependsonwhether its “praise” ispowerfulorfaint.Thewordsymbol isnormallyreservedfor thatwhich isparticularlyimpressiveinits“glorification.”18

Iflighthaslongbeenpre-eminentinthisregard,thenwaterislikeliquidlight,belongingtotheearthlyrealmyethavingtheuniquecapacitytomirrorthelightof “heaven.”The associationofwaterwith life is close, anduppermost in themindsofmostprimalpeopleandthosewholiveinanaridclimate.Afternearly400yearsofscientificanalysis,ithasremainedimpossibletoexplainwhatlifeisintermsofmaterialism.ForLings,“lifeisapresenceoftheSpirit,andthereforealtogethertranscendent....Themiracleoflifewhichisalwayswithus,bothinus and about us . . . the powers of illusion persuade us to take entirely forgranted.”19Nordoalltheattributesorqualitiesofwater—life’sessence—hopetobeexplainedbythecountofatoms.20Fromthepointofviewofsymbolism,bothwaterandlifeareprolongationsorprojectionsofArchetypesinthedomainof theSpirit“into” theworldofmatter. In theQur’an, it is through thedivinequalityofMercy(ar-Rahman, theInfinitelyGood,CompassionateorMerciful)thatbothrevelationandwaterare“sentdown”(tanzil).Thus,waterhereisnotbeingusedasanarbitrarysymbolfor thespiritual,buton thecontrary itbearsthe imprint of the spiritual—put simply, “water isMercy.”21 Ritual ablution,commontomostreligions,findsitsrationaleinthisunderstanding.InHinduism,the rivers of India are considered sacred, and bathing in them imparts thissacrament. In the ancientmedina of Fez, as inmany Islamic towns, a river’swaterischanneledbelowgroundtoemergeinclearfountainsinthecourtyardsofadozenmosques.Ifwater,likelight,isareflectionofahigherreality,thenpartofitsnatureisto

embody this very principle, since it is itself reflective.Watermay express theapparentcontinuitythatexistsbetweenthereflectionandtheoriginal,butitalsoshows that theone is quite unlike theother: amountain that appears in a stilllake is both the samemountain and utterly different. In theQur’an, it is thewaters of two seas22 which do not mix that represents the fundamentaldissimilarity of what is “above” and what is “below,” a duality originating,aboveall,withthehumanstate.ThetwoseasaretheworldsoftheSpiritandthe

soul,23 and while there may be some reflection of the Spirit in the psychicdomain,thepsychicisultimatelyasillusoryasthemiragethatshimmersonthedesert air. When the psychic elements that ruffle the surface of the soul arestilled,thequalitiesoftheSpiritarepermittedtoshineforth.Tospeakofreflectioninthiswayrecallsthetwogreatestsymbolsofspiritual

light,andhowtheypertaintothedomainofthesoul:

Thesunandthemoon...symbolizerespectivelytheSpiritandtheHeart:just as the moon looks towards the sun and transmits something of itsreflected radiance to thedarkness of thenight, so theHeart transmits thelightoftheSpirittothenightofthesoul.TheSpirititselfliesopentotheSupremeSourceofalllight,thusmaking,foronewhoseHeartisawake,acontinuitybetweentheDivineQualitiesandthesoul,araywhichispassedfromThembytheSpirittotheHeart,fromwhichitisdiffusedinamultiplerefraction throughout the various channels of the psychic substance. ThevirtueswhicharetherebyimprintedonthesoularethusnothingotherthanprojectionsoftheQualities,andinverselyeachoftheseprojectedimagesisblessed with intuition of its Divine Archetype. As to the mind, with itsreason, imagination and memory, a measure of the ‘moonlight’ which itreceivesfromtheHeartispassedontothesensesandthroughthemasfarastheoutwardobjectswhichtheyseeandhearandfeel;andatthisfurthestcontacttherayisreversed,forthethingsofthemacrocosmarerecognisedassymbols,thatis,askindredmanifestationsoftheHiddenTreasure,eachofwhichhasitscounterpartinthemicrocosm.24

Metaphysically there are many dualities, or occasions where “oneness”becomestwo,butfromthehumanperspective,theonlydualityofsignificanceistheonecomprisedofknowerandknown,orsubjectandobject,whichconfirmsus in our separation from Reality. Hence, for the human being it is theexpressions in nature that are indicative of both dividedness and itstranscendence that are meaningful. Duality is seen replicated throughout the“earthly” sphere or nature, such as in night and day, themale-female duality,and, within individual forms, by the two-fold symmetry of the body and itsfeatures. Between night and day there exists the brief but symbolicallysignificant twilightofopportunity;while thesexualunionofwhat isotherwisetwoissymbolicoftheunionof,first,themasculineandfeminineelementsofthepsyche or soul, and then the soul’s marriage, at a higher level, to the Spirit,

whence subject and object are fused. The Gods and their consorts in Indianmythology and art (ShivaandShakti, for example), are the archetypes of thisunion.25An initial division when prolonged becomes multiplicity. Then, the sun of

DivineUnityhasbeen“shattered”andbecomesas the lightofdiamondsuponthe waves. All the diversity in nature might be represented by its limitlesscolours, seen tobe themixtureof just threeprimaries—red,blue andyellow,irreducible beyond this unless they undergo what amounts to an abrupt,discontinuoustransformationintotheunityofwhiteorcolorlesslight.Unityinmultiplicityandthehiddenessenceisnowheremorestrikinglyrevealedthaninthebeautyofflowers.Asingularbudopens toreveal itsmultiplepetals,whiletheflowerhasacentrethatpointsbacktoitsorigin.Pre-eminentamongflowersaretheroseandthelotus,whichforIslamicandHindumysticismhavealwaysbeen symbols of the hidden Treasure. The essence of the rose is its perfume,whileforthelotusitisitspurity.Themanyfruitsofnaturecontainahiddenkernel,onceagain indicating the

hiddenessence.IntheChandogyaUpanishad,aguruinstructshissonthus:

“Bringmeafruitfromthisbanyantree.”“Hereitis,father.”“Breakit.”“Itisbroken,Sir.”“Whatdoyouseeinit?”“Verysmallseeds,Sir.”“Breakoneofthem,myson.”“Itisbroken,Sir.”“Whatdoyouseeinit?”“Nothingatall,Sir.”“...Myson,fromtheveryessenceintheseedwhichyoucannotseecomesintruth thisvastbanyantree.Believeme,myson,aninvisibleandsubtleessence is the Spirit of the whole universe. That is Reality. That isAtman.”26

Whentheimageryisreversedandthekernel is takentobenot theSupremeSubject,butthemorerelativesubjectiveconsciousness,thenthesignificanceoffruitwithoutakernelbecomesevident.InthefourQur’anicParadisesthehigherofeachpairaretheonesthatcontainthefigandthepomegranate,fruitwhich,

unlike the date and the olive of the lower pair, have no separate “kernel ofindividuality.”27AsupremesymboloftheEssenceisthenightsky.“Hidden”inthebrightness

ofday,itrepresentsRealitywithinillusion.TheArabicwordfornight,Layla,isalso the nameof the heroine of romantic poetry; hence, the symbol of humanloveordevotionistransferredtotheSuficaspirationtowardsthehiddengloryofthe essence, the supreme Archetype to which the incomparable mystery andmajestyofthenightskyattests.The symbols of theEssenceorUnity, towhichwehave access through the

senseof sight,have thepower,byvirtueof theirbeing inextricablyassociatedwith theArchetype, to referusback to it.Thereare some things innatureweholdtobesupremelybeautiful,andwebelieveweareattractedtothembecauseof this beauty. Yet to say, instead, that they are beautiful because they areattractive,morecloselycaptures themysticalapproachtonature.The“clearestreflections”28 attract by recalling tomind, or producing in consciousness, theworldthattheypartiallyembody.Thatis,theyhavethecapacity—ifweallowit—toaffectconsciousnessbydrawingitclosertotheArchetype.Thefeltsenseofbeauty, then, is thesoulpartaking, throughtheoperationoftheIntellect, intheArchetypewhoseessenceisBeautyitself.Logically,thedepthtowhichbeautyisfeltcorrespondstotheextentofmovementinthatdirection.The function of attraction to the Spirit and to Beauty that the visualworld

displays is just as evident in the world of sound and hearing. Themelodioussongofcertainbirds,forinstance,couldbelikenedtothebeautyofflowersintheir power to stir a longing for transcendence.Yet the function of attraction,which in the visual world depends upon a certain passive contemplation,becomes, in the world of sound, more dynamic, both in regard to Divineexpressivenessandfromthepointofviewofourowninvolvement.The Spirit’s immanence, and its movement through all of nature, is aptly

symbolizedbythewind,which“blowethwhereitlisteth.”29TheinitialcreativeactoftheSpiritisasabreathofwind“uponthefaceofthewaters,”30andwhenAdamiscreatedhehasthelifeoftheSpiritbreathedintohim.Ourownbreathisofthesamesubstance,andsoourownvocalizedwordshavebeenconsideredtocorrespondmysteriously to the things theyname. InGenesis II: 19 and in theQur’an, II: 31, it is given to Adam to name the creatures, “these names . . .[being]thephonationsthatexactlycorrespondedtowhattheyexpressed,echoesor symbolsof theverbalarchetypes.”31Thesupremewordsofa languageare

the names of God, and in conformity to this rule of correspondence, tendtowardswhatisessential.Forinstance,theforgottensoundofthelongunspokenHebrewnameYHVH,hasbeenconsideredtobethesoundmadebytheinhaledand exhaledbreath.32 InSufism, the supremenameHu (“He”)—the soundoftheexpelledbreath—isAllah’sessence.While,tosoundtheholyOm(AUM)oftheVedasistoechothethreefoldnatureofBrahman.ThemysteriousidentityoftheSupremenameandtheArchetypetowhichitrefers,isacknowledgedinallmetaphysical systems: “Hindu japa-yoga (union by invocation) and itsequivalents in all other esoterisms33 have, as their guarantee of efficacy, thetruthwhichSufismexpresseswiththewords‘theNameistheNamed’.”34The ability of human language to capture or reflect the divine qualities,

confirms the traditional idea of imagodivinis: “Man is, by his theomorphism,both work of art and artist: work of art because he is an ‘image’ and artistbecausethisimageisthatoftheDivineArtist.”35Nature,viewedascreation,isdivine artistry, and within nature, “man” is pre-eminent because he may re-expressthecreativeactthroughthe“art”ofhisverybeing.Thus,languagemaybeconsideredoneof the first sacredarts, since itsoriginalpurityof formandexpression, attested to by phonology, almost requires that for our earliestancestors “speechwas poetry.” Similarly, theirmovements “had the beauty ofdance.”36 For the reverberations of this ideal in recent times we have theexampleofprimalpeoples.InsofarastheartistisawareofthedivineimprintoftheindwellingSpirit,so

willhisorherartdepartfrompersonaloregoicexpressionandreflecttherealityof this inner essence.37 And, “to the extent that [the artist’s] objectivationreflects the secret depths of his being, it will take on a purely symboliccharacter.”38Thismustbesobecauseinnerinsightiswhatrevealsnatureitselfto be symbolic, and sacred art, to be authentic, is obliged to conform to thistruth.Whilenature’ssymbolsareaprolongationoftheirsupremearchetype,sothesymbolsofsacredartarealsoprolongations:“asacredsymbolisinacertainsense that to which it gives expression.”Moreover, this is why a “traditionalsymbolismisneverwithoutbeauty...[since]thebeautyofanobjectisnothingbutthetransparencyofitsexistentialenvelopes,andanartworthyofthenameisbeautifulbecauseitistrue.”39Traditionally,thearchetypalhumanbeingisoneinwhomthedivinequalities

manifest strongly, permitting a vision concordant with “primordiality.” The

prophet,orreligiousfounder,isanidealwhodefinestheoutlookatthebirthofareligion; an inner spiritual quality is pre-eminent, and its expression andpropagationismostlythroughspokenlanguage.Mindfulofexpressingonlytheessential, the sacred art associatedwith suchpersonages initially demonstratesan understandable reluctance to portray the human image, since outer form isinadequateasameanstoexpressinnerqualities.Instead,thisartatfirstparallelstheartofearliertimes,inrecognitionthatthehumanbeinginwhomthedivineisrealizedisonetowhomthefundamentalsof thecircleandthecentrearemostapposite.Burckhardtnotes that theearliestChristiansymbol, found in thecata-combs

beneathRome,was the superimposedGreek letterschi (x) and rho (p), a six-pointed “star” that recalls the four cardinal directions and the vertical axis,expressiveof thecentralityofboth thehumanstateand theSpirit.To thiswasoftenadded thesymbolof thecross,and theresultingeight-pointedstar,wheninscribedwithinacircle,formsaneight-spokedwheel.Thesymbolofthewheel(together with the tree of life) was utilized up until the Middle Ages, in thetympanaabovethedoorwayandintherosewindowsofchurchandcathedral.Inlikemannerthecosmicwheelandthesacredtree,traditionalinHinduism,wereusedinearlyBuddhistarttodepictGautamaBuddha.40Theprofoundsymbolismofthewheelbeginswithitsdepictionofunmoving

centreand turningperiphery,which, inHinduism, is theever-cyclingworldofSamsara—“thisvastWheelofcreationwhereinall thingsliveanddie.”41TheSpirit thatmoves thisworld remains as the core reality fromwhich theworldsprings and to which it returns.42 The wheel also echoes the circle of thehorizon, which is contiguous with both earth and sky. Analogously, from ametaphysical point of view there is no discontinuity between heaven and“earth”—theessenceatthecentreofheaven(Divinityinitscosmicaspect)isthesameastheessenceatthecentreofhumanity.Therefore,our“position”onthewheel’s circumference does not preclude access to the Spirit at the centrethroughoneof the radial spokes,which inonesenseare thevarious religions,andinanothertheesotericteachingoftheprophetsthemselves,who,byvirtueofwhattheyexpress,areabridgebetweenrimandhub.Thewheelasdharmacanbeconsidered“Truth,”butalso the innate tendencyornatureof things,ortheorderorstructureofreality.43

THEFIGURATIVEINSACREDART

Sacred art is not, of course, restricted to such fundamental symbolism. ForSchuon, thehuman image is inone sense theopposite of the simplicityof thecircle; it representsperfection incomplexity,as thecircle representsperfectionin simplicity.44 When a religion is based on the presence of a human“archetype,” then, it seems to demand a figurative art.45 In the case ofChristianity, a model was found in the Greco-Roman tradition, modified inaccordancewith the dictum that sacred art seeks to express an inner spiritualqualitythatisarchetypalanduniversal,whilenaturalismexpressesanouterformthat is individualistic and transient.46 When Christ or the Virgin are firstportrayed figuratively, the image is stylized. As Lings says, “The traditionalpainter . . . depicts the face ofmanwith human features subtly but distinctlytransfigured.”47Theintentionisalwaystoavoidelementsofstyleortechniquethat would situate the figure within a merely material setting, or make itobviouslyaworkofindividualisticinterpretation.ForBurckhardt,

Thestyleisthedirectresultofthefunctionofthesymbol:thepicturemustnotseektoreplacetheobjectdepictedwhichsurpassesiteminently;inthewords of Dionysius the Aeropagite, it must “respect the distance thatseparatestheintelligiblefromthesensible.”Forthesamereasonitmustbetruthfulonitsownplane,thatistosay,itmustnotcreateopticalillusions,suchasarisefromaperspectiveindepthorfrommodellingthatsuggestsabodyprojectingashadow.48

Instead, the figure should be “translucent,” its outer form scarcely veiling itsopening onto an innerworld of timeless relevance. The holy personages, thuspresented,stand

readytoconvertthebeholderfromhisrestrictedandlimitedpointofviewtothefullviewoftheirspiritualvision.Fortheartoftheiconisultimatelysototransformthepersonwhomovestowardsitthathenolongeropposestheworldsofeternityandtime,ofspiritandmatter,oftheDivineandthehuman,butseesthemasunitedinoneReality,inthatagelessimage-bearinglightinwhichallthingslive,moveandhavetheirbeing.49

Themysteryofthispossibilityliesinthetransformationthathasalreadytakenplaceintheartist.Allartcelebratestheconsciousnessoftheartistasmuchasthe

subject of their work, and when a particular model or form of expression isimposedupon an artist fromoutside, as it is in sacred art, it can act to effaceindividualismor ordinary egoic consciousness. In thewillingness to submit tothe“strictures”ofstyleandtechnique, liestheseedofaninnertransformation.Seekingtoportraytheinnerqualityorbeautyofthehumanimageisnodifferentfromtreadingthepathtowardsthediscoveryofone’sowninnerbeing.Hence,inthe end, the beauty that flows from a work of art is a measure of theconsciousnesstheartisthadofbeauty;inessence,itisameasureofthebeautyofthesouloftheartist.Anawarenessoftheessentialnatureofhumanitywould,inHinduism,create

anartwhichalwayscapturesthe“quasi-spiritualqualityofthehumanbody.”50InShivaasNataraja(“LordoftheDance”)—perhapsthepre-eminentexampleof this—the human form is a symbol of the Divine in its plenitude—transcendence and immanence. As both Creator and Destroyer, He is therebeforetheworldexists,andafteritisgone.AnditisHisenergywhichkeepsitfromperishing:whilethedancecontinues,theworldpersists.51TheDivinityinhumanformistheclearestreminder,too,ofthedivinewithin thehumanform,and our role as pontifex or “bridgemaker.” The divine dance becomes thearchetype for a human ritual—“the first of the figurative arts”52—that seeks,throughaparticipationinGod’sownmovingdanceofnature,nottodestroybuttopreservetheworld.Theenergywithinnature—thewinds,fallingwaters,tides,lightning,fire,the

fecundity of animals and plants—have for primal people been the clearestexpressionsoftheSpiritintheworld.Theirownbreath,theheart’s“fire,”ortheenergyintheirbodies,isnolessadivinepresencethat,when“broughtforth”insong,prayer,dance,orsexuality,enablesaparticipationinthewaysoftheSpirit.Hence,rites

linktheearthwiththehighestlevelsofreality.Aritealwayslinksuswiththe vertical axis of existence, and by virtue of that, links us with theprinciples of nature. This truth holds not only for the primal religions,where certain acts are carried out in nature itself—let us say theAfricanreligions or the Aboriginal religion of Australia, or the religions of theNativeAmericanIndians—butalso in theAbrahamicworld, in theHinduworld,andintheIranianreligions....Fromametaphysicalpointofviewaritualalwaysre-establishesbalancewiththecosmicorder.53

Therecouldbe fewmorepotent remindersofhumanityas“bridgemaker”—and even fewer that are as enduring—than the hand stencils of theAustralianAborigines.Within the secret recessesof the earth—herheart, as itwere—thehand placed upon the rock shows both an understanding of the need and awillingness to form a bondwith the earth.But howmuchmoremeaningful agesture,whenbreath isusedupon thisunionand,with liquidochre, thehandsown imprint is leftupon the stone,definingand fixing the linkbetweenSpiritandearth.Buddhism, centred on the historical personage of the Buddha, reverses the

Hindu perspective,which is primarily theocentric.Gautama refused to discussthe “indeterminate question” of God; his focus was humanity and itstransformation. And since the human quest for transcendence begins withindividuatedawareness, thehuman image inBuddhist artnaturallycrystallizesintoadepictionof theBuddhahimself,aman—motionlessnow—whose innerspiritual state, achieved not through action but contemplation, is portrayed inserenityofexpressionandsymbolicplacementoflimbs.54WhenTaoistartbecomesfigurative,itbecomessoalmostwithoutconviction,

as though thematerialworldwas only an idea. The landscapes ofmountains,lakesandtreesareephemeral,emergingfromanddissolvingintoabackgroundof nothingness—the void, orEssence, orTao—which can nomore be paintedthan spoken of, although its light, which suffuses such works, testifies to itsexistence.Forthecontemplativepainter,who“isneverunconsciousofthenon-manifested, the less solidified physical conditions are, the nearer they wouldseemtobe...totheRealityunderlyingallphenomena.”55Whilethebeautyofnature provides the initial impulse in the direction of contemplativeconsciousness, and in turn permits the imbibing of the quality of beauty, theattempt to paint nature continues this process of discovering nature throughdiscovering the inner Self. Taoist art, perhapsmore than any, reveals itself asprimarily “amethod for actualizing contemplative intuition,”56 theprocessbywhichtheartistcomestoknowtheessenceofthenaturalworldheorshepaints.OnlyinIslamdowefindaconsistentattempttoeschewthefigurativeinart.

By avoiding theGreco-Roman artistic influence, Islamic art spans, as itwere,thedistancebetweentheprimalworldandthemodern,andprovidesachannelinwhich a genuinely Intellectual current is contained and is able to flowunimpeded by humanism. To equate Islam with the “primordial religion,” asBurckhardtdoes, is tosee in ita recapitulationof theparticularoutlookwhich

valuesabovealltheessenceofthingsandseesnatureasthemosttranslucentveilof this essence. Islam is not foremost a celebration of any one man, but ofDivinity;MuhammadisoneamongmanymessengersofGod(Rasulu’Llah),therevelation being the “book” he recited (qur’anmeans “recitation”). If there isparadoxinIslam, it is that thereverencefor thebeautyofnature thatsaturatesthepagesoftheQur’anisnotusuallyallowedtospilloverintofigurativeworks.Yet this seeming contradiction really preserves the integrity of nature by notmakingofthisoriginalrevelationanidolatrousimage.TheleitmotifoftheQur’an is theessentialUnityofreality.ThisOnenessof

Beingfindsaformulainthedeclaration,lailahailla’Llah—“thereisnogodbutGod,”or“notruthbutTruth,”or“norealitybutReality.”57TheQur’an,which,withinthecontextoftheProphet’slifeandtimes,rangesoverthegreatquestionsofhumanexistence,continuallyemphasizesthatallthingshavetheiroriginandend inDivinity:Godoriginates creation, then brings it back again, then untoHim you shall be returned;58 and:Everything perisheth but His Face.59 ThegloriesoftheworlduponwhichwegazehavetheirultimategroundinthedivineBeing:Whithersoever ye turn, there is the presence of God.60 However, theprofoundrelevanceofmanifestation,creation,ornature,isnotdenied,sincetheworld—immersedinGod—iscontiguouswiththedivine;ifGod’snaturevastlytranscendsphenomena(Ifallthetreesintheearthwerepens,andiftheseaekedoutbythesevenseasmorewereink,theWordsofGodcouldnotbewrittenoutunto their end.61 ), nevertheless making divinity distinct from the world isprohibitedbytheOnenessofBeing(Wahdatal-Wujud).Theexpression,IwasahiddenTreasure,andIlovedtobeknownsoIcreatedtheWorld,62testifiesbothto the divine qualities hidden in nature, and to the part played by nature—especiallyhumanconsciousness—inunveilingthosequalitiesbyknowingthem.Sincenatureandhumanityarebothpartof thedivineexpression, thequalitiesare not ultimately known by any but God, which is to say that knowing thecreation fully—discovering the “hidden treasure”—is to manifest within ourbeing,theknowingofGod;tomanifesttheultimateknower.Tomakerelevanttheannouncementofahiddentreasureorawillingnesstobe

known, requires the provision of signs that would lead to this knowledge ortreasure.Tothisend,thealreadyquotedsurahLXIpromises:WewillshowthemOursignsuponthehorizonsandwithinthemselves,untiltheyknowthatthisisthe Truth.63 The two-fold nature of the signs here might be conceived once

again in termsof the epistemological andontologicaldivide.Thus, paramountamong the inner “signs”—those relating to knowing—is that confidentlyidentifiedbyLingswhenhesays,

Every human soul is imbuedwithwhatmight be called the sense of theAbsoluteoroftheTranscendent,thesenseofaSupremepowerthatisbothOriginandEndofthecreateduniversewhichItinfinitelytranscends.ThissensebelongstothefacultyoftheIntellect.64

Astothesignsonthe“horizons,”weareasked—aswewereintheBhagavadGita—tolooktothenaturalworld:AndamongHisSignsis thecreationof theheavensandtheearth....Heshowsyouthelightning...andHesendsdownrainfromtheskyandwithitgiveslifetotheearthafteritisdead.65Atthetimeof the Prophet, as in all religious cultures prior to the Age of Reason, theforcefulness of this “argument” relied on more than just prior belief in God.Drawing attention to such things was equivalent to being asked in our daywhetherwearenotprofoundlymovedbytherealityofwhatexists,byontologyatthedeepestlevel.Theresponsethatwearenot,oftendemonstratesthelearnedpreferenceforaparticularimaginativevisionoftheworldandourselves.Wearebentonobjectifyingtheworldratherthanengagingwithitfully.66Andweareunable to engagewith it fully becausewe are not complete ourselves, and soonly take part of ourselves to theworld.To imagine ourselves rational beingsreceiving sensory images, the interpretation of which is dependent upon ourconsciousness,istoimmediatelyrestrictontologytowhatthereasonandsensesmakeofit.Imaginationisherebeingusedtonegativeeffect,byperpetuatingaviewof ourselves and theworld that is the opposite of the one testified to bytradition. If imagination were instead used to re-animate the traditionalconception that both we and nature are much more, and that there is acorrespondence between not the sensory world and the individuatedconsciousness, but between the essence of the world and the essence ofconsciousness,itwouldopenthewaytoadifferentvisionofreality.

ADAEQUATIO

Thewaysinwhichimaginativevisioncanbeusedtopresentthismorecompleteontology are the stuff not only of poetry and art, but also of metaphysics. AparticularlyenlighteningmetaphorisoneRezaShah-Kazemiusestoeffect.The

multiplicity of manifestation could be likened to innumerable mirrors eachreflectingthequalitiesthatarethedivineOneness:67

God’smostbeautifulnamesandqualitiesdisplay the“hidden treasure” injustthesamewaythatanobjectdisplaysitselfinamirror.Itisthemirrorthat, inasense,“produces”thereflection—theobjectremainsinactive, itremainswhat it is, it doesnothave to exert any influenceother than thatwhich derives from its presence: it simply has to be present before themirror, and themirror “does” the rest. . . . It is by virtue of the differentshapesandformsandcoloursofthesemirrorsthattheoneandonlybeautyofGodassumesinnumerableforms,apparitions,faces.68

Sincethe“mirror”isnoneotherthanGod,natureistheself-disclosureofGod.Assuch,itcannotbeotherthanawondrousandsacredpresence,fullyjustifyingSherrard’s claim that “everything that lives is holy.”69 Immanent aspects aretruly signsof God; nature is not a “guidepost” that points elsewhere, but thatwhichmarks theverypresence of the “treasure.”And considering that all theNames, or attributes, or qualities ofGod, being infinite, necessarily “contain”every otherName, it is entirely justifiable to claim that the hidden treasure isBeauty itself. Truly, God is beautiful and He loves beauty, says a hadith.“[God’s] beauty is cast into themirrors of creation, which thereby display toHimthemultipleexpressionsofthisoneandonlybeauty.”70Onlywhenweconsiderourown“mirror-like”beingdowefindcauseforthe

denialofthisvision.Amirrormaybecloudedandtheimageitreflectsdimmed.The“Heart”maybecapableofreflectingalltheattributesofDivinity,butiftheoveruseof rationalityhasdarkened theglass andprevented the “light”of theIntellectfrompenetrating,trueBeautycannotbeknown.71Moreover,whenourimperfect“mirror”isturnedonnatureittooappearsasveiled,althoughthevery“absence”ofIntellectiveintuitionmeansthisveilingisnotapparent.BlindnesstothetruesignificanceofnaturalphenomenaisarecurrentthemeintheQur’an,whichconcedes:Itisnotthesightthatisblindbuttheheartsthatareblind.72The blindness or “hardness of heart”—the clouding of Intellective intuition—has,eventoday,itsprolongationintheattitudeofbeingheedlessof,orunmovedby,thesubtlerqualitiesoftheworld.Throughtheabovemetaphor,theintimatecorrespondencebetweennatureand

ourselves is revealed; the initially incomprehensible ideaofnaturemanifesting

thequalitieswhichwebelievebelongtous,isresolved—iftemporarily—whenwe imaginativelywithdraw ourselves from the rationalistic frameworkwe areusedto:

Multiplicityofmeaninginheresintheveryessenceofasymbol;andthisisits advantage over rational definition. For, whereas the latter organizes aconceptinrespectofitsrationalconnections—atthesametimefixingitonagivenlevel—thesymbolwithoutlosinganiotaofitsprecisionorclarity,remains ‘open upwards’. It is above all a “key” to supra-rationalrealities.73

The traditional view of reality exactly reverses the modern scientific view.While for science this very exercise in imagination only serves to firm theconviction that the ideabeingentertained is less real thanwhat is “out there,”fromthe traditionalistperspective imaginatiohasbeenusedasauseful tool intheserviceof theIntellect,whichknows that thequalitiesor theArchetypes—the Names of God—are the more real, and exist independently of us. In thewords of theSvetasvataraUpanishad: “Even as amirror of gold, covered bydust,whencleanedwellshinesagaininfullsplendour,whenamanhasseentheTruth of the Spirit he is one with him.”74Adaequatio (the medieval term towhich the economist and philosopher E.F. Schumacher refers75 ) means ourbeing is adequate to the knowledge of reality, not because individuatedconsciousness is superhuman in capacity, but because at the deepest leveleverythingtakespartinarealitythattranscendssuchconsciousness.The correspondence between symbol and Archetype, phenomena and

noumenon,ornatureandGod,iswhatdefineshowprimalpeopleperceivedtheworld. It explains their profound respect for it, the attempt to live inharmonywith it, andanartwhichsought toexpress thisprincipleofcorrespondenceorreflection.ToaccepttheprimacyoftheSpiritistoacknowledgethatwhateverisseenwithordinaryvision is but a shadowofwhat is seenwith the eyeof theHeart.Hence,tolosethisvisionistolosenotmerelyknowledgeoftranscendentperfection, but the vision of nature as a supremely beautiful reflection of thisstate.

THEGARDEN

Afadingvisionwould,logically,beindicatedbyanincreasingtendencytowards

anoutwardexpression—eithervisualorinwriting—ofwhathadpreviouslybeenan inward knowing. This trend is all too apparent when we compare the“primordial” statewith “civilization” in general, or study the evolutionof anyparticularreligiouscivilization.Tothetraditionalist,thegloriousexpressionsinart,architectureandliterature,whichfromoneperspectivesignalthefloweringofreligioussentiment,arealso,paradoxically,thetestamenttoaninnerfailing:

When theSpirithasneedofsuchadegreeofexteriorization, it isalreadywellonthewaytobeinglost;exteriorizationassuchbearswithinitselfthepoisonofoutwardness,andsoofexhaustion,fragilityanddecrepitude;themasterpieceisasitwereladenwithregrets.76

Whenafadingvisioniscombinedwithanostalgiaassociatedwiththelossofthenatural state itself, it is unsurprising that the faintmemoriesof a lost paradiseshouldbecrystallizedintheformofthegarden.InIslamicculture, there-creationofanEdenicgarden77findsitsimmediate

model in the Qur’anic description of the “Gardens of Paradise.” For EmmaClark,thecelestialParadiseis“symbolicoftheserenityandpeaceofheartandmind that the soul yearns for.”78 For the desertArabs—both nomad and citydweller—water, a tree’s shade, and the green of foliage, took on a mysticalsignificance: “water—particularly rain—andvegetationweredirect symbolsofGod’s mercy.”79 Clark identifies the oft-used Qur’anic phrase, “Gardensunderneathwhichriversflow,”asthatwhichmostnearlysuggeststhenatureofthe Islamic garden. Surat ar-Rahman (“The All Merciful”80 ), the longestQur’anic reference to Paradise, introduces the four fruits—dates, figs,pomegranates and olives—and the springs of flowing water, while a hadithwhichdescribestheProphet’smirajorascent to theheavenlyrealm,andSuratMuhammad,81 present the four rivers flowing from a centre. This fourfoldsymmetry,whichrecallsthecardinaldirectionsoftheearth,isreproducedintheclassicIslamicgarden(thePersianchahar-baghor“fourfoldgarden”).82Apre-eminentexample is thegardenof theTajMahal,wherewater flowsquietly inchannelsandbelowpavedwalkwaysintoacentralpool83fromfourdirections,thusdelineating the foursquaresof thegardenwhichare filledwith floweringplantsand trees.However, the jewelof suchgardensmaybe foundwithin thefortress-like walls of the Alhambra in Spain, one of the glories of Islamic

civilization.Here,aseriesofsecludedcourtyardsarefilledwiththesoundandsightofwater:

Rivers flowing, running water and fountains are the most powerful andmemorableimagesoneretainsafterreadingtheportrayalsofParadiseintheQur’an.Theapparentlyendlesslyflowing,splashingandtricklingwaterinthe gardens of the Generalife at the Alhambra must be one of the mostevocative representations of the Gardens of Paradise anywhere in theIslamicworld.84

An echo of these classic gardens is found in the traditional Islamic housewhereasquarecourtyardisenclosedbythefourwallsofthebuilding.Theword“paradise” is from the Persian pairi (“around”) and daeza (“wall”), and “thecourtyardis itselfakindofparadisegardeninminiaturesinceitrepresentstheinward, contemplative aspect of man.”85 Such a “paradise” may contain, forpractical reasons, only the element water (highly significant since water, likelight,is“asymbolofspiritualknowledge”86);inthiscase,thetreesandflowersliveonwithinthecolourfulpatternsofthecarpetswhichadorntheinteriorofthehouse.As sacred art, the Islamic garden is created to imitate its metaphysical

counterpart intheQur’anicrevelation,whichinturndraws itsinspirationfromtherevelationthatisnature.Ifallthese“gardens”areactuallysymbolic(asSufipoetslikeRumi,HafizandSadiremindus),thenultimatelytheyaresymbolsforaconsciousnessinneedofawakening.Significantly,thewordayat(“signs”)isused by theQur’an to describe both the signs in nature and its own verses.Furthermore, thesignsare there for thosewith“understanding.”This indicatesnotonlythatthetwo“books”cannotbereadwithoutsufficientknowledge,butthat they are alsowellsprings of this knowledge.When the book of nature istranslated into themorehuman languageof thegarden,wehave an art that isabletoimitatetheveryfunctionthatnaturehasherself.If,asRumiaffirms,“therealgardensandflowersarewithin,theyareinman’sheartnotoutside,”87thenthegarden’s truest purpose is to provide serenity and isolation, and so aid thecontemplative and interiorizing mode of consciousness. The garden containsflowing and falling waters that make the sunlight sparkle, gentle airs whichmovefoliageandwaftscents,andgreenplantslikethecypressandboxto“coolthe eyes.” “At the sight of glittering waves or of leafage trembling in the

breeze,”saysBurckhardt,“thesouldetachesitselffromitsinternalobjects,fromthe ‘idols’ of passion and plunges, vibrant within itself, into a pure state ofbeing.”88Its response is toa“sign”orsymbol thatappealsnot to“conceptualintelligence,but toaesthetic intuitionand,more fundamentally, to thesenseofthesacred.”89WhetheritbepatternedonIslamicideals,orthoseofChristianityoranyother

religion,orwhetheritissomethingwearejustmovedtocreateforourselves,thegarden, with its water’s gentle sounds, the sweet scented flowers, colourfulblooms and fruit trees, cannot but be an attempt to capture or prolong,somewhere within our artificial environment, a portion of the glory of itsprototypewhichlieswithoutthosewalls.Itsbeautyisanechoofaoncefamiliarbeauty; thegarden’screation isultimately inpraiseofnatureand theSupremecreator. As Schuonwrites, “unless we are able to content ourselves with thatshadow of Paradise that is virgin nature, we must create for ourselvessurroundings which, by their truth and their beauty recall our heavenlyorigin.”90The garden as sacred art fulfils three functions. Firstly, it is a direct

prolongationofwildnatureitself,containingmanypre-eminentsymbolicformswhere the beauty of the essence shines strongly. Secondly, like nature, itprovides the environment inwhich themind is liberated from the suffocatinggripofdiscursivethought,andthesereneandstilllightofIntellectiveintuitionisfree tomanifest and allowBeauty to be known. Its third function rests on itsabilitytodowhatmuchofsacredartdoes:tore-mindusofthenatureofnature.It isas thoughpartofnaturehadbeencaptured, likeabirdfromthewild,andplacedin theconfinesofcivilization.Its“song”is inpraiseof theworldof itsorigin:

Virgin Nature is at one with holy poverty and also with spiritualchildlikeness;sheisanopenbookcontaininganinexhaustibleteachingoftruthandbeauty.Itisinthemidstofhisownartificesthatmanmosteasilybecomescorrupted,itistheythatmakehimcovetousandimpious;closetovirginnature,whoknowsneitheragitationnorfalsehood,hehasthehopeofremainingcontemplativelikeNatureherself.91

Intheclamourofcivilization,wehavegrownusedtovaluingourownworksasmoreglorious,andbelievingnaturetobesilent.Yet,naturehasalwaysbeen

the foundation upon which our artificial world is built, and it has alwaysprovided the foremostmeansofdisclosing itsown,andour,nature. Indeed, inthe light ofwhat nature embodies, “themarvels of traditional culture are likeswansongsof thecelestialmessages; [they]exteriorizegloriouslyall thatmenarenolongercapableofperceivingwithinthemselves.”92Forthisreason,

had we to make a choice between the most magnificent of temples andinviolate nature, it is the latter we would choose; the destruction of allhumanworkswouldbenothingcomparedtothedestructionofnature.93

Tosetupcivilizationinoppositiontonatureistoseeitinevitablyfail.Iftheearth’ssereneinnervoicecontinues togounheeded,stillshewillhavethe lastword, although itwill then be harsh.There can be few thingsmore importantnow than to hear a message that speaks for nature. The esoteric, or inner,dimension of our religious traditions, which sacred art represents, is themostvaluableaspectofcivilization,sinceitalonehasthecapacitytore-orientussothat we look, oncemore, back into the heart of nature. If wewere to seek asuprememetaphor for this function,wewould find it, again, in theAlhambra,wheresacredartdovetailsbeautifullyintothe“art”ofnature,andwheretheartwecreateservesaskeytoopen,asitwere,thebeautycontainedincreation.Inone of the rooms of the palace, there is a view through a window onto acourtyardwheretreesgrow.Dividedbyaslimpillar,itresemblesanopenbook.The room is detailed, refined and subtle; its elaborate decoration representsIslamicarchitectureat theheightof itssophistication.WeknowthereligionofIslam is itself indissolubly linked to a book, a scripture containing layers ofesoteric or innermeaning. Sincemuch of the architecture and art of Islam issymbolic, the room’s interiormight be said to represent this other dimension.Nature, then,which canbe seen through theopen “pages,” is seen in just thiswaybecauseofthepresenceoftheseother“books.”Inthisbookwithinabookwithin a book metaphor, to first open the book of religion, then the book ofesotericknowledge,revealsthebookofNature,theessenceofwhichisBeauty.

FOOTNOTES

1Lings,TheSacredArtofShakespeare,p.136.2Eventoday,writesLings,“therearesomenomadicorsemi-nomadicpeoples...whohaveaspontaneouscontemptforanythingwhich,likeagriculture,would

fixtheminoneplaceandthuscurtail their liberty”(Lings,AncientBeliefsandModern Superstitions, p. 8). Thus, the American Indian “has no intention offixing himself on this earth where everything, according to the law ofstabilization and also of condensation . . . is liable to crystallize; and thisexplains the Indian’s aversion for houses, especially stone ones, and also theabsenceofawriting,which,fromthisperspective,wouldfixandkillthesacredflowoftheSpirit”(FrithjofSchuon,LanguageoftheSelf[Bloomington:WorldWisdom, 1999], pp. 196-7). An echo of this sentiment is found in Tasmania,where one of the earliest contacts carried the presentiment of what wouldeventually turn to conflict. At Recherché Bay, the naturalist, JacquesLabillardière, had an area of scrub cleared to make a vegetable garden. TheAborigines,althoughdelightedtomeettheFrenchexplorers,wereunimpressedbythisorthefoodthemenbrought,orotheraccoutrementsoftheircivilization.Indeed, the conflict which arose and would later become the “black wars,”stemmed asmuch from the European determination to alter the landscape byshootingthekangaroosandintroducingsheep,asfromanunwillingnessonthepartoftheAboriginestosharetheland.Evenafternearlyahundredyears,whentheoriginalpopulationof12,000haddiminishedtoafewdozen,theresistanceto white civilization had persisted. The Aborigines, cooped up on the muchsmallerFlindersIslandinthenorth,andpressedtoliveinsmallcabins,readandwrite,andattendchurchservices,preferredtohuntthewildshearwater,collectshellfish, andpaint their bodies anddance, than submit to such iniquities.SeeBob Brown, Tasmania’s Recherché Bay (Hobart, Australia: Green Institute,2005);LyndallRyan,TheAboriginalTasmanians;andColinDyer,TheFrenchExplorers and the Aboriginal Australians 1772-1839 (St Lucia: University ofQueenslandPress,2005).3Because, for us, this knowledgehas all but disappeared,wehave learned tomakeoftheroadtravelledan“ascent,”andtobelievewhatpeopleofeventherecentpastdidnot,thatprimalpeopleswerelessadvanced.Asinheritorsofthepost-Agrarianculture,ouridentificationwithitisalmostcomplete.Thelineagethat“Cain”inspiredhascarriedawilfulindependence,self-satisfactionandevencontemptfortheworldleftbehind.Wehaveinterpretednearlyalltheelementsthat have arisen from this sedentary culture as beingmore sophisticated, eventhough,asLingspointsout,“agriculture,afteracertaindegreeofdevelopmenthadbeenreached,farfrommarkingany‘progress’,becomesinfact‘thethinendof thewedge’of . . .man’sdegeneration” (Lings,AncientBeliefsandModernSuperstitions, p. 7). Thus, our own religious expressions are also thought to

contain greater subtlety of thought and greater meaning, and, consequently,primalpeopleswere thought tobewithout truereligion.This failure to remainsufficiently cognizant of esoterismand a perennialwisdompresents the singlegreatest difficulty in assessing the merits of a pre-Agrarian past. The idea ofdevolutionwouldbefarmoreprominentifitwereotherwise.4SeeLings,TheEleventhHour,p.57.5Lings,AncientBeliefsandModernSuperstitions,p.7.6Lings,AncientBeliefsandModernSuperstitions,p.7.7Among thepre-IslamicArabs,“itwas thecustomof thenoblesofMecca tosendtheirsonstobebroughtupamongtheBedouinsofthedesertbecausetheseentirely illiterate nomads were known to speak purer Arabic than their more‘civilized’ brethren of the town” (Lings, Ancient Beliefs and ModernSuperstitions, p. 10). Lings explains: “however accustomed we may be tothinkingoflinguisticprowessasinseparablefromliteracy,amoment’sreflectionis enough to show that there is no basic connection between the two, forlinguisticcultureisaltogetherindependentofthewrittenalphabet,whichcomesasavery lateappendix to thehistoryof languageasawhole” (Lings,AncientBeliefsandModernSuperstitions,pp.8-9).SeealsointhisconnectionAnandaK.Coomaraswamy,The Bugbear of Literacy (Bedfont, UK: Perennial Books,1979),p.25.8 Titus Burckhardt, The Universality of Sacred Art (Colombo: Sri LankaInstituteofTraditionalStudies,2001),p.14.9Burckhardt,TheUniversalityofSacredArt,p.9.10And this is so apparently deliberately, since the “stick” figures familiar insuchartoftensit sidebysidewith thebeautifullymodeled imagesofanimals.The cavepaintings ofLasaux and the rockpaintings ofAustralianAboriginesareexampleshere.11 “According to the Hindu tradition the square obtained by the rite oforientation is the symbol ofPurusha insofar as he is immanent in existence.Purusha is pictured in the shape of a man stretched out in the fundamentalsquare”(Burckhardt,TheUniversalityofSacredArt,p.10).12Burckhardt,TheUniversalityofSacredArt,p.14.13Burckhardt,TheUniversalityofSacredArt,p.13.14 The “centre” to which Muslims pray—the Kaaba—is also empty and

thereforemustbethoughtpuresymbol,standingfortheDivinepresenceintheHearttowhichSufismattests.15Burckhardt,TheUniversalityofSacredArt,pp.13-14.16 For example, “The art of Ballawinne (. . . ‘ochre’) Cave [in south-westTasmania]...isincompletedarkness.ThisisextremelyrareamongAustralianart sites, butmorenearlyparallels decorated cavesof theUpperPaleolithic inEurope”(Flood,RockArtoftheDream-time,p.225).17Qur’an,SurahAl-Nur,24:35(YusufAlitranslation).18Lings,SymbolandArchetype,p.6.19Lings,SymbolandArchetype,pp.73and76.20Forinstance,water’sabilitytoimprintthecharacterofthatwithwhichit isassociated has long been testified to by homoeopathy.More recently,MasaruEmoto hasmade claims for its ability to imprint thought. See hisTheHiddenMessagesinWater(NewYork:AtriaBooks,2004).21 “And,” writes Lings, “it would be true to say that even without anyunderstanding of symbolism and even without belief in the Transcendent,immersion in water has an inevitable effect upon the soul in addition to itspurification of the body. In the absence of ritual intention, this effectmay bealtogethermomentaryandsuperficial; it isnone the lessvisibleon the faceofalmostanybatheremergingfromalakeorriverorsea,howeverquicklyitmaybeeffacedbytheresumptionof‘ordinarylife’”(Lings,SymbolandArchetype,p.67).22The seas arementionedoften, but see, for example,Qur’an,XXV:53andXVIII:60-82.23See the chapter “TheQuranicSymbolismofWater,” inLings,SymbolandArchetype,pp.67-82.24Lings,SymbolandArchetype,pp.3-4.25Lings,SymbolandArchetype,p.21.26Mascaró,TheUpanishads,p.117.27SeeQuróanLV:46-68.28Lings,TheSacredArtofShakespeare,p.135.29John3:8.

30Genesis1:2.31Lings,SymbolandArchetype,p.60.32DavidAbrams,TheSpelloftheSensuous(NewYork:Vintage,1997),p.246.33 For instance, the Jesus prayer inChristianity and thenembutsu inAmidistBuddhism.34 Lings, Symbol and Archetype, p. 12. Cf. St John’s Et Verbum erat apudDeum,EtDeuseratVerbum(“AndtheWordwaswithGod,AndtheWordwasGod”).35FrithjofSchuon,CastesandRaces(London:PerennialBooks,1982),p.61.36Lings,SymbolandArchetype,p.58.37This iswhy,wheneverart aspires tobe sacred,“itmustnotbe the ‘I’, thatrootofillusionandofignoranceofoneself,whicharbitrarilychooses[themeansofexpression]....Theymustbeborrowedfromtradition,fromtheformaland‘objective’ revelation of the supreme Being who is the ‘Self’ of all beings”(Burckhardt,TheUniversalityofSacredArt,p.4).38 Burckhardt, The Universality of Sacred Art, p. 4. Although sacred artinevitably looks to nature, “this in no way implies that the complete Divinecreation,theworldsuchasweseeit,shouldbecopied,forsuchwouldbepurepretension;aliteral‘naturalism’isforeigntosacredart.WhatmustbecopiedisthewayinwhichtheDivineSpiritworks.Its lawsmustbetransposedintotherestricteddomain inwhichmanworks asman, that is to say, into artisanship”(Burckhardt,p.3).39Burckhardt,TheUniversality of SacredArt, p. 2. “Itmust be recognized,”saysAnandaCoomaraswamy,“thatalthoughinmodernworksofarttheremaybenothing,ornothingmorethantheartist’sprivateperson,behindtheaestheticsurfaces, the theory in accordance with which works of traditional art wereproducedandenjoyedtakesitforgrantedthattheappealtobeautyisnotmerelytothesenses,butthroughthesensestotheintellect:here‘Beautyhastodowithcognition’; and what is to be known and understood is ‘an immaterial idea(Hermes),a‘picturethatisnotinthecolours’(LankavataraSutra),‘thedoctrinethatconcealsitselfbehindtheveilofthestrangeverses’(Dante),‘thearchetypeoftheimage,andnottheimageitself’(StBasil)”(Coomaraswamy,“Symbols,”inWhatisCivilisation?p.126).40Burckhardt,TheUniversalityofSacredArt,p.31.

41Mascaró,TheUpanishads,p.86.42 In earlyTaoist art “the disc represents the heavens or the cosmos, and thevoid in the centre the unique and transcendent Essence” (Burckhardt, TheUniversalityofSacredArt,p.35).43DharmamaybeconsideredequivalenttoTao,Sharia,andNomos.Alltheseterms “demonstrate that there is an order that governsman aswell as nature,fromwhich comes ourmodernword cosmos. TheGreekword cosmosmeansboth order and beauty” (Nasr, The Spiritual and Religious Dimensions of theEnvironmentalCrisis,p.23).44Schuon,“SeeingGodEverywhere,”p.10.45Burckhardt,TheUniversalityofSacredArt,p.18.46Havingsuchamodel,meantChristianitywasalwaysopentorevertingtoastyle thatwas anthropocentric, largely secular, and naturalistic. The art of theRenaissance betrays this movement; while religious themes are still depicted,they are less expressive of essential reality and more of contingent form.Michelangelo’s and Raphael’s brilliantly executed sensual forms are more acelebrationofthesensoryworld,andshowlittlemarkofthemoresubtleinnerqualitiesoftraditionalsymbolism.47Lings,SymbolandArchetype,p.66.48Burckhardt,TheUniversalityofSacredArt,p.22.49PhilipSherrard,TheSacredinLifeandArt(Ipswich,UK:GolgonoozaPress,1990),p.84.50Burckhardt,TheUniversalityofSacredArt,p.24.ForBurckhardt,thetemplesculptures depicting sexual union do not compromise this quality; heresensualityistransmuted“bysaturatingitwithspiritualawareness”(Burckhardt,p.23).51Burckhardt,TheUniversalityofSacredArt,p.23.52Burckhardt,TheUniversalityofSacredArt,p.24.53Nasr,TheSpiritualandReligiousDimensionsoftheEnvironmentalCrisis,p.13.For traditionalists, the entire structureof the cosmosoperates according tolaws that require of us participation in order to preserve the integrity of thewholesystem.“Thereligiousworld-viewpointstoakindofmystery—becauseit is really amystery from a purely humanpoint of view—themystery of the

relationshipbetweenlawsthatshouldgovernusmorallyandspirituallyandthelawsthatgoverntheuniverse”(Nasr,p.23).“Wearelikeawindowofthehouseofnaturethroughwhichthelightandairofthespiritualworldpenetrateintothenaturalworld.Oncethatwindowbecomesopaque,thehouseofnaturebecomesdark.That is exactlywhatwe are experiencing today.Oncewe have shut ourheartstoGod,darknessspreadsoverthewholeoftheworld”(Nasr,p.13).Theritesofprimalpeoplesareoften“laughedatbyofficialscience,but. . .suchascienceneglectsthesympathaeiawhichexistsbetweenmanandcosmicrealities.. . . It is impossible for a human collectivity to live in harmony with naturewithoutthisritualizedrelationshipwiththenaturalworldandharmonywithGodandthehigherlevelsofcosmichierarchy”(Nasr,pp.13and14).54ThequestionofwhetherBuddhismistobeconsideredareligionintheusualsense is answered by Burckhardt in the affirmative: “Instead of starting itsexposition from a supreme principle,which could be likened to the apex of apyramidmadeupofallstatesofexistence—andthisiswhattheuniverselookslikefromatheocentricpointofview—itproceedsonlybywayofnegation,asifitweretakingmanandhisnothingnessasstartingpoint,andbuildingthereonaninverted pyramid which expands indefinitely upwards towards the void. Butdespite the inversion of perspective, the quintessence of the two traditions[HinduismandBuddhism]isthesame.Thedifferencebetweentheirrespectivepoints of view is this: Hinduism envisages divine Realities in an ‘objective’manner by virtue of their reflections in the mind, such a reflection beingpossible, outside and independently of their immediate spiritual realization,becauseoftheuniversalnatureoftheIntellect.Buddhismontheotherhandlayshold on the Essence of man—or the Essence of things—only by way of a‘subjective’path,thatistosay,bythespiritualrealizationofthatEssenceandbythatalone; it rejectsas falseor illusoryeverypurelyspeculativeaffirmationofsupra-formal Reality. This attitude is justified by the fact that the mentalobjectivationofDivineRealitymayoftenconstituteanobstacletoitsrealizationbecausereflectioninvolvesaninversionwithrespecttothatwhichitreflects...andbecausethoughtlimitsconsciousnessandinasensecongealsit;atthesametime thoughtdirected toGodappears tobesituatedoutside itsobject,whereasGodisinfiniteandnothingcanreallybesituatedoutsideHim;allthoughtaboutthe Absolute is therefore vitiated by a false perspective” (Burckhardt, TheUniversalityofSacredArt,p.27).55Burckhardt,TheUniversalityofSacredArt,p.36.

56Burckhardt,TheUniversalityofSacredArt,p.36.57InSufism, theformula—whichcondensesallofreality intounifiedessencelikeaprismfocusingthecoloursofdiversityintoasingularlight—isitself themystical means by which the veil is penetrated and the “Hidden Treasure”revealed.58Qur’an,XXX:11.The same is expressed in theMundakaUpanishad: “Asfromafireaflamethousandsofsparkscomeforth,evensofromtheCreatoraninfinityofbeingshavelifeandtohimreturnagain”(Mascaró,TheUpanishads,p77).59Qur’an,XXVIII:88.60Qur’an,II:115(YusufAlitranslation)61Qur’an,XXXI:27(MartinLings’translation).62“World”meaningallthatexists,or“standsout”fromGod.63Qur’an,XLI:53.64MartinLings,TheEleventhHour,p.1.65Qur’an,XXX:23-24(YusufAlitranslation).66Aprofoundresponsetotheworldisevenstillpossibleinmodernphilosophy:“It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists,”proclaimed Ludwig Wittgenstein (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trans. D.F.Pears and B.F. McGuiness [London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961],proposition6.44).67Theaptnessofthesymbolismofthemirror,foundinallmysticisms,liesinitsbeing,asBurckhardtsays,“thesymbolofthesymbol.”Asymbolisareflectionof its Archetype, and the mirror—like still water—is a symbol for this veryprocessofreflection.68 Reza Shah-Kazemi, “Verily God is Beautiful and He Loves Beauty:AestheticsinIslamicMetaphysics,”(unpublishedpaper,pp.5and6).69“ForEveryThingThatLivesIsHoly”—theconcludinglineofBlake’s“TheMarriage of Heaven and Hell”—is the title of an essay by Sherrard. See ASacredTrust:EcologyandSpiritualVision,eds.DavidCadmanandJohnCarey(London:TemenosAcademyPapers17[2002]):pp.1-32.70Shah-Kazemi,“VerilyGodisBeautifulandHeLovesBeauty,”p.6.

71 For Burckhardt, “the Intellect itself is the mirror of the divine Being”(Burckhardt,TheMirroroftheIntellect,p.118).72Qur’an,XXII:46.73Burckhardt,TheMirroroftheIntellect,p.117,emphasisadded.74Mascaró,TheUpanishads,p.88.75 SeeE.F. Schumacher,AGuide for thePerplexed (London:Abacus, 1995),chapters4and5.76Schuon,UnderstandingIslam,p.162.77AChineseequivalentof thegardenasreflectionofParadiseisfoundintheTaoistgardenoftheTangDynasty,wheregreatcareistakentomakethegardenimitatenature closely, andprovide ameanswhereby all theyin-yangqualitiesand symbols arebrought together.See J.C.Cooper, “TheYin and theYang inNature,”inSeeingGodEverywhere,pp.227-238.78 Emma Clark,Underneath Which Rivers Flow (London: Prince of Wales’InstituteofArchitectureResearchDepartment,1996),p.11.79Clark,UnderneathWhichRiversFlow,p.9.80Qur’an,LV.81Qur’an,XLVII:15.82 Clark,Underneath Which Rivers Flow, p. 16. Clark reminds us that thissymmetry of the square is not unique to Islam but is found in the medievalmonasteriesandcathedralcloses,and“thelayoutofthegreatBotanicalGardensof thesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies, suchas thoseatPaduaandOxford,was also based on the fourfold pattern; the gardens were intended to berepresentationsoftheoriginalGardenofEdencontaining,intheory,samplesofeveryplantintheworld”(Clark,pp.23-24).83 This centerpiece is often octagonal, the octagon being a shape midwaybetweenthesquareoftheEarthandthecircleof“heaven.”84Clark,UnderneathWhichRiversFlow,p.13.85Clark,UnderneathWhichRiversFlow,p.22.86Clark,UnderneathWhichRiversFlow,p.36.87Mathnawi,IV:1357,quotedbyAnnemarieSchimmel,TheCelestialGarden(WashingtonDC:DumbartonOaks,TrusteesofHarvardUniversity,1976).

88TitusBurckhardt,SacredArtinEastandWest(Bloomington:WorldWisdom,2001),p.101.89FrithjofSchuon,FromtheDivinetotheHuman,p.103.90 Frithjof Schuon, Esoterism as Principle and Way (Bloomington: WorldWisdom,1990),p.196.91Schuon,TheFeatheredSun,p.41.92FrithjofSchuon,ToHaveaCenter(Bloomington:WorldWisdom,1990),pp.34-35.93Schuon,UnderstandingIslam,p.163.

POSTSCRIPT

Manyofthegreattraditionalculturesoftheworldrefertoacyclicmovementoftime,akintothepassageoftheseasonsyetvastinscope.InHinduismtherearefour successiveages,oryugas; the last of them, theKaliYuga, inwhich, it issaid,wenowlive,isthedarkestbecauseinitaknowledgeofourtruenaturehasbeen all but eclipsed. In the Greco-Roman tradition, it was accepted that aremote“golden”agehadlongagogivenwaytooneof“iron.”NorwasthestateofhumanityperceivedanydifferentlyintheAbrahamicreligions,whereasenseofimminentdoompervadedWesternconsciousnessuntiltheRenaissance.Andif, as was anticipated, this darkest of ages inaugurates a new cycle, it is notbefore a degenerate humanity has brought destruction to theworld. Thus, theAmerican Indian tradition foresees a “purification day” when the damagewroughttotheearthwillberedressed.The mechanism for a destruction of biblical proportions is now evident.

Globalwarming, if itcontinues toescalate,maybringnotonly flood,but fire,famine,andpestilence.Assuredly,itishumanitythatistoblame.And,ifwetakethe traditionalist stance that a spiritual crisis lies at the root of the ecologicalcrisis, then the reasonweare implicated isbecausean ignoranceofournaturehas allowed us to acquiesce to a dangerous paradigm of thought, the outwardmanifestationofwhichmustbeimplicatedintheworld’sruin.Yet, as Philip Sherrard says, no one ismaking us pursue this suicidal path.

Likewise, “no one can stop us from changing our own self-image andconsequently our worldview except ourselves.”1 If our worldliness does notpermitustobelieveinamiraculousreinstatementofagoldenage,stillwemayembrace the logic inherent in the view of cyclic time. A return to whatwas,implies a return to a past understanding, and so an understanding of the past.Andwhile faith in a linear progress would once havemade us shy from thisreturn,theworldwehavebroughtintoexistencebyouractionsshouldallowustorecognizesuchfaithasmisplacedanddelusionary.Anengagementwiththeprogrammethatecophilosophyhassetitselfwasthe

initial impulsebehindtheimaginativetravel intothepast.Anawarenessoftheexigenciesweface,amistrustofcurrentthought,andawillingnesstosurveyaswidea landscapeofwisdomaspossible,hasprovidedecophilosophywith themeans to acquire, from the past, a vision for the future. Of all modernmovements, it is capable of resetting the course thatWestern civilization has

beencompelledtofollowforoverfourhundredyears,abandoningthedesolateseasofmodernist thought, andmakingourway towardsa re-encounterwithagenuinemetaphysicaltradition.Thisisalottoaskofaphilosophythatisoftencaptivatedbytheviewaroundit,andbythesirensongofscience.However,there-emergenceof the sophia todaymaybe seenas fortuitous forenvironmentalthought.For, it isasif thepasthadcomehalfwaytomeetit,andbrought, too,the same vital scepticism of the ultimate worth of rational empiricism thatecophilosophy often professes. It is in the esoteric dimension of traditionalthought that we can discern the affirmation of precisely the qualities withinhumanityandwithinnaturethathavebeendeniedthroughtheoverextensionofreason.Tofindthattraditionspeaksofanintuitiveperception,thesupremevalueof thenaturalworld, and themysterious“feminine”qualityofbeauty, is tobemadeawareofwhattherationalmindhassilenced.Itistobemadeaware,too,of a clear point of convergence for both tradition and the environmentmovement.The three elements, or strands, which seem to define this movement— a

profound response tonature, disaffectionwith themodernist paradigm, andanintuitiveaspirationtowardsanessentialwisdomthatmightguideour livesandheal the earth—are echoes of those sentiments brought forth byRomanticism,whereinan initial revoltagainstscientism, togetherwith the impactofesotericthought,re-shapedthevisionofnature.Tooweaktoresisttheheroicimpulseofscience,however,thisearliermovementfellapart.Anopportunitynowexiststobraidthethreestrandsinacordwhichwillnot

break.Thismustbeouraim.Beauty,thatmysteriousqualitywhichexplainstheemergenceofeachstrand,canalsobewhatdrawsthemtogether.Theperceptionofbeautyislikeasecretrevealed—itisbothevidenceforanessentialrealityandfortheunfoldingofconsciousness.Whenthebeautythatdwellsattheheartofnatureisseentobethesamebeautyinourinmostheart,beautyisrevealedasawingedmessengermovingbetweentwoworlds,unveilingasitgoes.Itbecomesboththebestofguidesandtheverymeansbywhichwetravel.Wecanalwayspoint to thebenefitsofmodernscience,andevendebate the

relativeinfluenceofscienceontheshapingofthemodernistworldview.ButweshouldbeawarethatmodernscienceparalleledthedemiseofthesophiaintheWest, and that today the very operation of science—its faith in reason,empiricism and measurement as the means to knowledge—obscures both anunderstanding of the Intellect, and the alternative vision of the world that itgives. To lose the vision of the Intellect is to lose a vision of nature as a

supremelybeautifulpresence.Itistolosethevisionofearthasparadise.The tragedy of the world today is not just that there are ever fewer

opportunitiestoexperiencethetransformingqualityofnature,butprogressivelyless inclination. The beauty of this world is fast disappearing and we cannotexpectevertocreateanequivalent.Indeed,theconsciousnessthatisheedlessofitsdestructionhashadbeautydrainedfromit,andtobeunabletoregisterbeautyis to be unable to produce it either.While the power of nature’s inner beautywouldoncehavebeenallthatwasnecessarytoinstilalovefortheworld,itcanno longer be relied upon. Now that the discursive, rational mode ofconsciousness has become pre-eminent, we are as sleepwalkers blunderingtowards our doom,mindlesslywielding the firebrand thatmust seal it. In theabsence of real vision,we are in desperate need of an imaginative vision—analternativeviewofourselvesandtheworld—toinvigoratethenascentintuitivesensethatliesattheheartoftheenvironmentmovement.Thiscouldbeachievedbyprovidingametaphysical foundation for thismovement—byecophilosophyabandoning an outdated and increasingly restrictive paradigm and drawinginsteadfromthewisdomoftradition.

FOOTNOTES

1Sherrard,HumanImage:WorldImage,p.4.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams,David.TheSpelloftheSensuous.NewYork:Vintage,1977.Adorno,Theodor.AestheticTheory.London:Continuum,1997(1970).Angus, Max. The World of Olegas Truchanas. Hobart, Tasmania:OlegasTruchanasPublishingCommittee,1975.

Bacon, Francis.Advancement of Learning, ed.W.A.Wright. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,1900.

Bakar, Osman (ed). Critique of Evolutionary Theory: A Collection ofEssays. Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Academy of Science and Nurin Enterprise,1987.

Behe,Michael.Darwin’sBlackBox.NewYork:TheFreePress,1996.Berry, Wendell. Life is a Miracle: An Essay against ModernSuperstition.WashingtonDC:Counterpoint,2000.

———. “Christianity and theSurvival ofCreation”. InBarryMcDonald (ed),SeeingGodEverywhere,2003,pp.53-70.

Bertell, Rosalie. Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War. London:Women’sPress,2000.

Birch,Charles&Cobb,Jr.,JohnB.TheLiberationofLife:FromtheCelltotheCommunity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1981.

Blake,William.Jerusalem:TheEmanationoftheGiantAlbion.1820.———.TheMarriageofHeavenandHell.Oxford:Oxford:UniversityPress,1975.

Bohm, David. The Special Theory of Relativity. New York: W.A.Benjamin,1965.

———.WholenessandtheImplicateOrder.London:Routledge,1983.Bookchin, Murray. “Social Ecology versus ‘Deep Ecology’”. GreenPerspectives: Newsletter of the Green Program Project, 4/5 Double Issue,Summer(1987):pp.1-23.

———. Re-Enchanting Humanity: A Defense of the Human SpiritagainstAntihumanism,Misanthropy,andPrimitivism.London:Cassell,1995.

Briggs, John P. & Peat, F. David. Looking Glass Universe: The EmergingScienceofWholeness.London:Fontana,1985.

Bronowski,Jacob.TheAscentofMan.London:BBC,1976.———.TheOriginsofKnowledgeandImagination.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1978.

Brown,Bob.LakePedder.Hobart,Tasmania:TheWildernessSociety,1985———.Tasmania’sRecherchéBay.Hobart,Tasmania:GreenInstitute,2005.Brown,JosephEpes.TheSacredPipe:BlackElk’sAccountoftheSevenRitesoftheOglalaSioux.Norman:UniversityofOklahomaPress,1989(1953).

Bryson,Bill.AShortHistoryofNearlyEverything.Doubleday:London,2003.Burckhardt,Titus.MirroroftheIntellect.Cambridge:QuintaEssentia,1987.———. The Universality of Sacred Art. Colombo: Sri Lanka InstituteofTraditionalStudies,2001.

———.Sacred Art in East andWest. Bloomington, Indiana:WorldWisdom,2001.

Burke, Edmund. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origins of our Ideas oftheSublimeandBeautiful.Oxford:OxfordPaperbacks,1998(1757).

Callicott, J. Baird. “Conceptual Resources for Environmental Ethics in AsianTraditions of Thought: A Propaedeutic”. Philosophy East and West 37(2),April,(1987):pp.115-121.

———.“TheLandAesthetic”.InJ.BairdCallicott(ed),CompaniontoASandCountyAlmanac.Madison,Wisconsin:UniversityofWisconsinPress, 1987,pp.157-171.

———.“What’sWrongwiththeCaseforMoralPluralism.”Paperpresentedatthe Sixty-Third AnnualMeeting of the American Philosophical Association,Berkeley,California,March23,1989.

Capra,Fritjof.TheTaoofPhysics.London:Fontana,1983(1975).———.TheTurningPoint.London:Fontana,1990(1983).Carlson, Allen. “Nature and Positive Aesthetics”. Environmental Ethics6(1984):pp.3-34.

———.AestheticsandtheEnvironment.London:Routledge,2000.Carson,Rachel.SilentSpring.London:HamishHamilton,1963.Chadwick,Henry.TheEarlyChurch.Harmondsworth:Penguin,1990(1967).Chryssavgis, John.“TheWorldof the IconandCreation”. InBarryMcDonald(ed),SeeingGodEverywhere. Bloomington, Indiana:WorldWisdom, 2003,pp.253-266.

Clark, Emma. Underneath Which Rivers Flow: The Symbolism of theIslamicGarden.London:ThePrinceofWales’InstituteofArchitecture,1996.

Clark,Kenneth.Civilisation.London:BBC,1969.Clarke,J.J.OrientalEnlightenment:TheEncounterbetweenAsianandWesternThought.London:Routledge,1997.

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. The Complete Poems of Samuel Taylor

Coleridge.London:Penguin,1997.Coomaraswamy, Ananda. The Bugbear of Literacy. Bedfont UK:PerennialBooks,1979.

———.WhatisCivilisation?Ipswich:GolgonoozaPress,1989.Coomaraswamy, Rama. The Destruction of the Christian Tradition.London:PerennialBooks,1981.

———(ed).TheEssentialAnandaK.Coomaraswamy.Bloomington, Indiana:WorldWisdom,2004.

Cooper, J.C. “TheYin andYang inNature”. InBarryMcDonald (ed),SeeingGodEverywhere,Bloomington,Indiana:WorldWisdom,2003,pp.227-238.

Cornford, Frances MacDonald. The Republic of Plato. London: OxfordUniversityPress,1955(1941).

Crick, Francis. Of Molecules and Men. Washington DC: UniversityofWashington,1966.

———.TheAstonishingHypothesis.NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1995.Cutsinger,James.AdvicetotheSeriousSeeker.NewYork:SUNY,1997.Dante Alighieri. The Divine Comedy, trans. Mark Musa.Harmondsworth:Penguin,1986.

Davies,David.TheLast of theTasmanians. Sydney: ShakespeareHeadPress,1973.

Davies,Paul.TheMindofGod.London:Penguin,1992.Davies,Peter.“Mururoa:HowSafeare theFrenchTests?”Quantum televisiondocumentary produced by Australian Broadcasting Corporation, August 23,1995.

Dawkins,Richard.RiverOutofEden.London:Phoenix,1995.———.UnweavingtheRainbow.London:Penguin,1998.———.TheGodDelusion.London:Bantam,2006.Denton,Michael.Evolution:ATheoryinCrisis.London:Burnett,1985.Dewar, Douglas. The Transformist Illusion. New York: Sophia PerennisEtUniversalis,1995(1957).

Dubos,René.ReasonAwake.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1970.Dyer,Colin.TheFrenchExplorers andAboriginalAustralians 1772-1839. St.Lucia:UniversityofQueenslandPress,2005.

Eaton, Charles Le Gai. King of the Castle: Choice and Responsibility intheModernWorld.Cambridge:TheIslamicTextsSociety,1990.

Eddington, Arthur. The Nature of the Physical World. New York: Macmilan,1928.

Edwards,Philip (ed).TheJournalsofCaptainCook.London:PenguinBooks,1999.

Egler, F.E. The Way of Science: A Philosophy of Ecology for the Layman.NewYork:Hafner,1970.

Ehrenfeld,David.TheArroganceofHumanism.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1981(1978).

Ehrlich,Paul.TheMachineryofNature.London:Collins,1986.Emoto,Masaru.TheHiddenMessagesinWater.NewYork:Atria,2004(2001).Flood,Josephine.RockArtoftheDreamtime.Sydney:HarperCollins,1997.Fox,Warwick.“DeepEcology:ANewPhilosophyofourTime?”TheEcologist14(1984):pp.194-200.

———.“TheMeaningsofDeepEcology”.IslandMagazine,35(1988):pp.4-6———.TowardaTranspersonalEcology.Boston:Shambhala,1990.Godfrey-Smith,William. “TheValue ofWilderness”.Environmental Ethics, 1(1979):pp.309-319.

Goldsmith, Edward. The Way: An Ecological Worldview. London:RandomCentury,1992.

———.“Editorial”.TheEcologist,30(1)(2000):p.3.Goldsmith,Zac.“DiscomfortandJoy”.TheEcologist,30(7)(2000):pp.35-39.Goodpaster,Kenneth.“OnBeingMorallyConsiderable”.JournalofPhilosophy,75(1978):pp.308-25.

Griffin,Susan.WomanandNature:TheRoaringInsideHer.NewYork:HarperCollins,1978.

Guénon,René.OrientetOccident.Paris:Trédaniel,1924.———.ManandHisBecomingAccordingtotheVedanta.NewDelhi:OrientalBookReprintCorporation,1981.

———.TheReignofQuantityandtheSignsoftheTimes.NewYork:SophiaetPerennis,1995(1945).

Hagger,Nicholas.TheFireandtheStones.Shaftesbury,Dorset:Element,1991.Harding,Stephan.“ExploringGaia”.Resurgence,No.204(2001):pp.17-19.Hawking,Stephen.ABriefHistoryofTime.London:Bantam,1988.———.OntheShouldersofGiants.London:PenguinBooks,2003.Hay, Peter. Main Currents in Western Environmental Thought. Sydney:UniversityofNewSouthWalesPress,2002.

Hobson, John. The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2004.

Hume, David. Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning

ThePrinciplesofMorals.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1983(1777).———.“OftheStandardofTaste”.InFourDissertations,1757.Huxley, Aldous. The Perennial Philosophy. London: Chatto &Windus, 1969(1946).

Johnson, Philip.Darwin on Trial, Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press,1993.

Jung,C.G.CollectedWorks.Vol.10,London:Routledge,1969.Kant, Immanuel.Critique of Judgment, trans.Werner S. Pluhar. Indianapolis:HackettPublishing,1987(1790).

Keeble, Brian. “AnandaK. Coomaraswamy: Scholar of the Spirit”. Sophia, 2(1),1996,pp.71-91.

Kiernan,Kevin.“ISawMyTempleRansacked”. InBobBrown,LakePedder,Hobart,Tasmania:WildernessSociety,1985,pp.18-23.

King,Ynestra.“TheEcologyofFeminismandtheFeminismofEcology”.InJ.Plant (ed),Healing theWounds: ThePromise ofEcofeminism. Philadelphia,Pa.:NewSociety,1989,pp.1-28

Kuhn,Thomas.TheStructureofScientificRevolutions.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1977(1962).

Laing,R.D.TheVoiceofExperience.Harmondsworth:Penguin,1983.Lane,John.TimelessBeauty.Dartington,England:GreenBooks,2003.Lean,Geoffrey. “GlobalWarming toSpeedUpasCarbonLevelsShowSharpRise”.TheIndependent,January15,2006,p.1.

Leopold,Aldo.ASandCountyAlmanac.NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press,1989(1949).

Lewis,C.S.TheAbolitionofMan.Glasgow:FountPaperbacks,1978.Lings,Martin.AncientBeliefsandModernSuperstitions.London:Unwin,1980(1965).

———. Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources. KualaLumpur:FoundationforTraditionalStudies,1983.

———.The EleventhHour: The Spiritual Crisis of theModernWorld in theLightofTraditionandProphecy.Cambridge:QuintaEssentia,1987.

———.SymbolandArchetype.Cambridge:QuintaEssentia,1991.———.A Sufi Saint of the TwentiethCentury. Cambridge: The Islamic TextsSociety,1993.

———. The Sacred Art of Shakespeare. Rochester: Inner Traditions,1998(1984).

Lovelock, James. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford: Oxford

UniversityPress,1995(1979).———.TheRevengeofGaia.London:Penguin,2006.Majzub,Justin.“MartinLings:CollectedPoems”.Sophia,5 (2),1999,pp.73-104.

Malyon-Bein, Angela. In Search of the Timeless Wisdom: An Inquiry intotheEcological Implicationsof theLossofTradition inWesternCivilization.Ph.D.thesis.Hobart,Tasmania:UniversityofTasmania,2001.

Mascaró,Juan.TheBhagavadGita.Harmondsworth:Penguin,1975.———.TheUpanishads.Harmondsworth:Penguin,1975.Mathews,Freya.TheEcologicalSelf.Maryland:Barnes&Noble,1991.———.ReinhabitingReality:TowardsaRecoveryofCulture.Albany:SUNY,2005.

Matthiessen,Peter.IndianCountry.London:Fontana,1986(1979).McDonald, Barry (ed). Seeing God Everywhere: Essays on Nature andtheSacred.Bloomington,Indiana:WorldWisdom,2003.

McKibben,Bill.TheEndofNature.Harmondsworth:Penguin,1990.Merchant, Carolyn. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and theScientificRevolution.SanFrancisco:HarperCollins,1980.

Naess, Arne. “Identification as a Source of Deep Ecological Attitudes”.InMichaelTobias (ed),Deep Ecology. SanDiego:Avant Books, 1985, pp.256-70.

———.“Self-Realization:AnEcologicalApproachtoBeingintheWorld”.TheTrumpeter,4(3)(1987):pp.35-42.

Nash, Roderick. “Aldo Leopold’s Intellectual Heritage”. In J. Baird Callicott(ed), Companion to a Sand County Almanac. Wisconsin: University ofWisconsin,1987,pp.63-88.

———. The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics.Sydney:PrimaveraPress,1990.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Knowledge and the Sacred. Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,1981.

———.ScienceandCivilization.Cambridge:TheIslamicTextsSociety,1987.———.ManandNature:TheSpiritualCrisisinModernMan.London:UnwinHyman,1990(1968).

———.The Spiritual and Religious Dimensions of the Environmental Crisis.TemenosAcademyPaper12,London,1999.

———.“Man andNature:Quest forRenewedUnderstanding”.Sophia 10 (2)2004,pp.5-14.

Needham,Joseph.WithintheFourSeas.London:GeorgeAllen&Unwin,1979(1969).

Nicks,OranW.(ed).ThisIslandEarth.WashingtonDC:NASA,1970.Northbourne, Lord.Religion in theModernWorld. Ghent, New York: SophiaPerennis,1994.

———.LookingBackonProgress.Ghent,NewYork:SophiaPerennis,1995.Oldmeadow, Kenneth (Harry). Traditionalism: Religion in the Light ofthePerennialPhilosophy.Colombo:SriLankaInstituteofTraditionalStudies,2000.

Oldmeadow, Harry. “The Firmanent Sheweth His Handiwork: Reawakening aReligiousSenseoftheNaturalOrder”.InBarryMcDonald(ed),SeeingGodEverywhere:EssaysonNatureandtheSacred.Bloomington,Indiana:WorldWisdom,2003,pp.29-50.

———.JourneysEast:20thCenturyWesternEncounterswithEasternReligiousTraditions.Bloomington,Indiana:WorldWisdom,2004.

———.TheBetrayalofTradition.Bloomington,Indiana:WorldWisdom,2005.Pallis,Marco.PeaksandLamas.London:Cassell,1939.Penrose,Roger.ShadowsoftheMind.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1994.Perry, Whitall (ed). A Treasury of Traditional Wisdom. Cambridge:QuintaEssentia,1991(1971).

Plomley,N.J.B.(ed).FriendlyMission:TheTasmanianJournalsandPapersofGeorge Augustus Robinson 1829-1834. Hobart: Tasmanian HistoricalResearchAssociation,1966.

Popper, Karl R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper &Row,1968(1934).

———.Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: ClarendonPress,1974.

Raine,Kathleen.Autobiographies.London:SkoobBooks,1991.———.“TheVerticalDimension”.Temenos13,1992,pp.195-213.Randall,JohnHerman.TheMakingoftheModernMind.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1976.

Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University ofCaliforniaPress,1983.

Rosenhead, Jonathan. “PrisonControl andCatastropheTheory”.NewScientist72,1976,p.120.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Reveries of the Solitary Walker, trans. PeterFrance.Harmondsworth:Penguin,1979.

Russell, Bertrand. Why I am Not a Christian. New York: Simon &Schuster,1957.

———.AHistoryofWesternPhilosophy.London:Unwin,1984(1946).Ryan, Lyndall. The Aboriginal Tasmanians. Sydney: Allen & Unwin,1996(1981).

Sagan,Carl.TheDragonsofEden.London:Hodder&Stoughton,1977.———.TheDemon-HauntedWorld.London:Headline,1996.Salleh,ArielKay.“DeeperthanDeepEcology:TheEco-FeministConnection”.EnvironmentalEthics6,1984,pp.339-45.

Scarry, Elaine. On Beauty and Being Just. Princeton, New Jersey:PrincetonUniversityPress,1999.

Schaya,Leo.“Creation,theImageofGod”.InBarryMcDonald(ed)SeeingGodEverywhere:EssaysonNatureandtheSacred.Bloomington,Indiana:WorldWisdom,2003,pp.241-251.

Schimmel, Annemarie. The Celestial Garden. Washington DC:DumbartonOaks,TrusteesofHarvardUniversity,1976.

Schneider, Pierre. “Optics at Chartres Reported Ruined”. New YorkTimes,January1,1977,p.3.

Schumacher,E.F.AGuideforthePerplexed.London:Abacus,1995(1955).Schuon,Frithjof. Islamand thePerennialPhilosophy.Worldof IslamFestivalPublishingCompany,1976.

———.Sufism,VeilandQuintessence.Bloomington, Indiana:WorldWisdom,1981.

———.FromtheDivinetotheHuman.Bloomington,Indiana:WorldWisdom,1982.

———.CastesandRaces.London:Perennial,1982.———.TheTranscendentUnityofReligions.Wheaton, Illinois:QuestBooks,1984.

———.LogicandTranscendence.London:PerennialBooks,1984.———.Light on the Ancient Worlds. Bloomington, Indiana:WorldWisdom,1984.

———.SpiritualPerspectivesandHumanFacts.Middlesex:PerennialBooks,1987.

———.TheFeatheredSun.Bloomington,Indiana:WorldWisdom,1990.———.EsoterismasPrincipleandWay.Bloomington,Indiana:WorldWisdom,1990(1981).

———.ToHaveaCenter.Bloomington,Indiana:WorldWisdom,1990.

———. Understanding Islam. Bloomington, Indiana: World Wisdom,1994(1963).

———.LanguageoftheSelf.Bloomington,Indiana:WorldWisdom,1999.———. “Seeing God Everywhere”. In Barry McDonald (ed), SeeingGod Everywhere: Essays on Nature and the Sacred. Bloomington, Indiana:WorldWisdom,2003,pp.1-14.

Schweitzer,Albert.MyLifeandThought.London:Unwin,1966.Shah-Kazemi,Reza.“VerilyGodIsBeautifulandHeLovesBeauty:Aestheticsin IslamicMetaphysics” (unpublished andundated article). Sherrard,Philip.TheSacredinLifeandArt.Ipswich,England:GolgonoozaPress,1990.

———. Human Image: World Image. Ipswich, England: GolgonoozaPress,1992.

———.“TheScienceofConsciousness”.TheScientific andMedicalNetworkNewsletter,No.48,April1992,pp.5-7

———.Christianity:LineamentsofaSacredTradition.Boston,Massachussets:Brookline,1998.

———.“ForEverythingthatLivesisHoly”.InDavidCadmanandJohnCarey(eds), A Sacred Trust: Ecology and Spiritual Vision. London: TemenosAcademyPapers17,2002,pp.1-32.

———.“TheDesanctificationofNature”.InBarryMcDonald(ed),SeeingGodEverywhere:EssaysonNatureandtheSacred.Bloomington,Indiana:WorldWisdom,2003,pp.109-130.

Shute,Evan.FlawsintheTheoryofEvolution.Nutley,NewJersey:CraigPress,1961.

Singer,Peter.AnimalLiberation:ANewEthics forOurTreatmentofAnimals.NewYork:RandomHouse,1975.

Smith,Huston.BeyondthePost-ModernMind.Wheaton,Illinois:Quest,1989.Smith,Wolfgang. “Bell’sTheoremand thePerennialOntology”.Sophia, 3 (1)1997,pp.19-38.

Stone, Christopher. “Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal RightsforNaturalObjects”.SouthernCaliforniaLawReview45(1972).

Tacey, David J. Edge of the Sacred: Transformation in Australia.NorthBlackburn,Victoria:HarperCollins,1995.

Tarnas, Richard. The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding theIdeasThatHaveShapedOurWorldview.NewYork:Ballantine,1991.

Thoreau,HenryDavid.Walden.NewYork:Harper&Row,1965(1854).TeilhardDeChardin,Pierre.TheFutureofMan.London:Collins,1973(1959).

Uždavinys, Algis. The Golden Chain: An Anthology of Pythagorean andPlatonicPhilosophy.Bloomington,Indiana:WorldWisdom,2004.

White, Jr., Lynn. “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis”. In Ian G.Barbour (ed), Western Man and Environmental Ethics: Attitudes TowardNatureandTechnology.Reading,Massachusetts:AddisonWesley,1973,pp.18-30.

Whitman, Walt. Leaves of Grass, Jerome Loving (ed). Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,1998.

Wilson,Colin.Starseekers.London:Granada,1982(1980).Wilson,E.O.Consilience:TheUnityofKnowledge.NewYork:Vintage,1999.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Fromwhence comes the inclination to dwell upon, let alone write about, thedisappearingbeautyoftheworld?Innosmallwayitarisesfromtheinspirationof those people forwhom theEarth has become part of their being, andwhowriteabout itwithpassion.Ofmany, I singleout thosewhoespeciallyguidedtheformthisbooktakes.Peter Hay, under whose thoughtful guidance writers may flourish. Mary

Jenkins,anenvironmental travelerfromthe“beginning,”whosefriendshipandassistance is ever ready. The traditionalist writers, Frithjof Schuon, SeyyedHosseinNasr, Philip Sherrard, andKathleenRaine,whose special insight intothe ecological crisis helped illuminate the metaphysical landscape. SatishKumar,whosewholelifeisalessoninearthwisdom.AndAngelaMalyonBein,acompanioninlife,whoselove,encouragement,andwisecounselneverfails.Grateful thanks go to all those atWorldWisdomwhohavemade this book

possible, especially Mary-Kathryne Steele, Stephen Williams, and ClintonMinnaar.Picture credits are as follows: “Lake Pedder, Tasmania” byGordonGriffin;

“Lake Pedder from Frankland Range, Tasmania” and “Showers, FranklandRange, Tasmania” by Olegas Truchanas, reproduced by kind permission ofMelvaTruchanas;“WeldRiver,SouthernTasmania”byPhilGriffin;“Morninglight on Little Horn, Cradle Mountain, Tasmania” by Peter Dombrovskis,reproducedbykindpermissionofLizDombrovskis;“ChristPantocrator,SanctaSophia,Istanbul,Turkey”and“Twobirds,copperrenditionof16th-17thcenturyceramic tilework,Hotel dûGrandMonarque,Chartres, France” by the author;“Patio de la Acequia, Generalife Gardens, Alhambra, Spain” by Emma Clarkand Khaled Azzam; “Trisul, Himalaya, India,” “The Blue Virgin Window,ChartresCathedral, France,” and “Mirador deLindaraja,Alhambra,Spain” byAngelaMalyonBein.

BIOGRAPHICALNOTES

JOHNGRIFFINwasborninTasmania,Australia.Althoughstillayouthwhenhe witnessed the destruction of Lake Pedder in the heart of the Tasmanianwilderness, the experience left a deep impression upon him. Growing up, heexploredmanyofTasmania’swild areas.An abiding loveof nature combinedwithaconcern for theplightof theenvironment influencedhis later academiccareer.AnHonors’DegreeinEnvironmentalStudieswasfollowedbyaPh.D.inEnvironmentalPhilosophy.Hisbook,OntheOriginofBeauty, isanadaptationofhisdissertation(whichwontheDean’sPrizefor2007).Hehastravelledwidely,seekingoutplaceswheretraditionalwaysoflifeare

still to be found, in such countries as India,Morocco and Turkey. Traditionalarchitecture and timeless ways of building have been inspirational, and onreturningfromthesetravels,hespentseveralyearsinAustraliabuildinghomesfromnaturalmaterials—earth,stone,andtimber.AndinEngland,togetherwithapartner,hebuiltastonesunkengarden in thegroundsofSchumacherCollege,Devon.He now lives on a small farm in the hills of northern Portugal, engaged in

rehabilitatingoldstone-walledterraces,tendinganorganicvegetablegardenandorchard,anddevotinganysparetimetowriting.

SATHISHKUMARwasborn inRajasthan, India, in1936.He latersettled inEngland in 1973, taking on the editorship ofResurgencemagazine.He is theguidingspiritbehindanumberofecological,spiritual,andeducationalventuresinBritain. In1991,SchumacherCollege—a residential international center forthestudyofecologicalandspiritualvalues—wasfounded,withKumaractingastheDirector ofProgrammes formanyyears.He is the author ofPathWithoutDestination,YouAreThereforeIAm,andNoDestination.

OtherTitlesinthePerennialPhilosophySeriesbyWorldWisdomTheBetrayalofTradition:EssaysontheSpiritualCrisisofModernity,editedby

HarryOldmeadow,2005

BorderlandsoftheSpirit:ReflectionsonaSacredScienceofMind,byJohnHerlihy,2005

ABuddhistSpectrum:ContributionstoBuddhist-ChristianDialogue,byMarcoPallis,2003

AChristianPilgriminIndia:TheSpiritualJourneyofSwamiAbhishiktananda(HenriLeSaux),byHarryOldmeadow,2008

TheEssentialAnandaK.Coomaraswamy,editedbyRamaP.Coomaraswamy,2004

TheEssentialRenéGuénon,editedbyJohnHerlihy,2009

TheEssentialSeyyedHosseinNasr,editedbyWilliamC.Chittick,2007

TheEssentialSophia,editedbySeyyedHosseinNasrandKatherineO’Brien,2006

TheEssentialTitusBurckhardt:ReflectionsonSacredArt,Faiths,andCivilizations,editedbyWilliamStoddart,2003

EveryBranchinMe:EssaysontheMeaningofMan,editedbyBarryMcDonald,2002

EveryManAnArtist:ReadingsintheTraditionalPhilosophyofArt,editedbyBrianKeeble,2005

FiguresofSpeechorFiguresofThought?TheTraditionalViewofArt,byAnandaK.Coomaraswamy,2007

AGuidetoHinduSpirituality,byArvindSharma,2006

IntroductiontoTraditionalIslam,Illustrated:Foundations,Art,andSpirituality,byJean-LouisMichon,2008

IntroductiontoSufism:TheInnerPathofIslam,byÉricGeoffroy,2010

Islam,Fundamentalism,andtheBetrayalofTradition:EssaysbyWesternMuslimScholars,

editedbyJosephE.B.Lumbard,2004,2009

JourneysEast:20thCenturyWesternEncounterswithEasternReligiousTraditions,byHarryOldmeadow,2004

LightFromtheEast:EasternWisdomfortheModernWest,editedbyHarryOldmeadow,2007

LivinginAmida’sUniversalVow:EssaysinShinBuddhism,editedbyAlfredBloom,2004

MaintainingtheSacredCenter:TheBosnianCityofStolac,byRusmirMahmutćehajić,2011

OftheLandandtheSpirit:TheEssentialLordNorthbourneonEcologyandReligion,editedbyChristopherJamesandJosephA.Fitzgerald,2008

PathstotheHeart:SufismandtheChristianEast,editedbyJamesS.Cutsinger,2002

RememberinginaWorldofForgetting:ThoughtsonTraditionandPostmodernism,byWilliamStoddart,2008

ReturningtotheEssential:SelectedWritingsofJeanBiès,translatedbyDeborahWeiss-Dutilh,2004

ScienceandtheMythofProgress,editedbyMehrdadM.Zarandi,2003

SeeingGodEverywhere:EssaysonNatureandtheSacred,editedbyBarryMcDonald,2003

SingingtheWay:InsightsinPoetryandSpiritualTransformation,byPatrickLaude,2005

TheSpiritualLegacyoftheNorthAmericanIndian:CommemorativeEdition,byJosephE.Brown,2007

Sufism:Love&Wisdom,editedbyJean-LouisMichonandRogerGaetani,2006

TheTimelessRelevanceofTraditionalWisdom,byM.AliLakhani,2010

TheUnderlyingReligion:AnIntroductiontothePerennialPhilosophy,editedbyMartinLingsandClintonMinnaar,2007

UnveilingtheGardenofLove:MysticalSymbolisminLaylaMajnunandGitaGovinda,

byLalitaSinha,2008

TheWisdomofAnandaCoomaraswamy:SelectedReflectionsonIndianArt,Life,andReligion,

editedbyS.DuraiRajaSingamandJosephA.Fitzgerald,2011

Wisdom’sJourney:LivingtheSpiritofIslamintheModernWorld,byJohnHerlihy,2009

YeShallKnowtheTruth:ChristianityandthePerennialPhilosophy,editedbyMateusSoaresdeAzevedo,2005